- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:21:54 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2001, at 05:40 AM, Brian McBride wrote: > > > All RDF applications > > must specify whether or not language tagging in literals is > > significant; > > that is, whether or not language is considered when performing string > > matching or other processing. > > Or what? Under penalty of death? Seriously, I think that wording > such as this should be softened somewhat in the new spec... if > we don't change xml:lang, that is. Hey - don't shoot the messenger. I just thought it would be useful to know what m&s says on the subject. There's some more: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#216 As defined by XML, the character repertoire of an RDF string is ISO/IEC 10646 [ISO10646]. An actual RDF string, whether in an XML document or in some other representation of the RDF data model, may be stored using a direct encoding of ISO/IEC 10646 or an encoding that can be mapped to ISO/IEC 10646. Language tagging is part of the string value; it is applied to sequences of characters within an RDF string and does not have an explicit manifestation in the data model. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 12:24:23 UTC