W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: rdfms-xmllang: a proposal

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:11:58 -0500
Message-ID: <3B5C76FE.FC5781D4@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
> 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.

Really? they found it useful?
I thought the OCLC folks got their job done
without using xml:lang.

I guess I'll pore over the records, but I'd appreciate a pointer.

> 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.

That doesn't seem to cover the case of rdf:parsetype="Literal".

>   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 text is wrong?

>     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 already says that a literal isn't just a string.

>     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

Why? n-triples can repesent pairs already, using triples.
I find that option much more appealing.

>   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.

I'm not interested
in adopting it separately from a solution
to rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure. (I'm not interested
in adopting it at all; but this issue allows me
to give some justification, over and above 'yuk!')

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 15:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC