- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:37:05 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
The story so far: We have established that M&S clearly states that it consider langauge to be 'part of' a literal. We identified 3 use cases requiring language support: Martyn's Jan's OCLC's Of these Martyn's did not consider representation of language in a literal to be important. The other two found the M&S specification of language as part of a literal to be useful and adequate for their needs. I propose therefore that: o a literal be regarded as a pair (s,l) where s is a string of ISO10646 characters and l is either null or a language identifier as defined in RFC 1766 or its successors. o that an item be included in the errata for M&S: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#33 which should make it clear that a literal is not just a simple string, but a compound structure including an optional representation of a language encoding. It should be noted that other parts of the text of the specification may need similar clarification. o that n-triple be modified to represent the language encoding of a literal o that we delay determining the wording of the errata and the change to n-triple until issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure is resolved as the outcome of that issue may further refine the definition of a literal. Brian
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 12:39:38 UTC