Re: Reversing the debate.

On 09/27/2011 09:55 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> See Jeremy's message:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0425.html

Interesting reading.   My quick reading interprets this as ``we can
say sensible things about language identifiers in OWL, but it is not
easy to get complete and right''.  Would that be a reasonable
interpretation of the paper?

I think my ideal would be that I can use a language tag as an
identifier and I can apply XML language matching logic to them.  Would
that be possible?  Maybe by adding the original tag as an attribute to
the language URI.  So, "foo"@en is "foo"^^lang:en en { lang:en something
"en" }?

If something in the spirit of 3 doesn't work, I do not see much profit
in any of the alternatives and would simply stay at option 1 (and
make "foo" equivalent to "foo"^^xsd:string).

 --- Jan

> The details of language tags don't map onto datatypes very well (e.g.
>  scripts which are different lexical forms so don't work with
> sub-datatypes). It would need a significant amount of time (WG time)
> to attempt an option 3 approach.
>
> Personally, I don't think there is a solution that respects the work
>  people have put into language identification in ISO 639 etc. But if
>  there is, option 2* does not completely preclude option 3* as later
> work as it only adds the datatype at the root of the subtree.
>
> And what about RDF/XML (rdf:datatype, xml:lang) for option 3?
>
> For me, rdf:LangString proposal (any option 2) at least gives all
> literals a datatype which is a (small) step forward, and we're
> changing plain literals anyway.

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 09:20:40 UTC