- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:11:58 -0500
- 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