- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:06:24 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, em@w3.org
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > 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. Eric, please did I understood you correctly at the last telecon? I understood you to say that the DC use case you provided did use xml:lang as specified in M&S and that was adequate to meet the requirements of that use case. > > I guess I'll pore over the records, but I'd appreciate a pointer. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0013.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0111.html > > > 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". True - we've got that as a separate issue but really these should be considered together. > > > 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? or it can be a literal; i.e., a resource (specified by a URI) or a simple string or other primitive datatype defined by XML. This text does not make it clear, at least to me, that a literal can have a language component as described in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#221 The xml:lang attribute may be used as defined by [XML] to associate a language with the property value. There is no specific data model representation for xml:lang (i.e., it adds no triples to the data model); the language of a literal is considered by RDF to be a part of the literal. > > > 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. The original WG have taken a different view. Is there a more powerful case that can be made to change what M&S specifies than we have so far heard. > > > 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. Fair enough. (I'm not interested > in adopting it at all; but this issue allows me > to give some justification, over and above 'yuk!') I see 'yuk', what's the justification? Brian
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 18:11:43 UTC