- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:28:59 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 10:28 PM 7/16/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >>I took an action at the last teleconference to write up >>alternative ways of resolving this issue. >> >>Option 1: No Change >>=================== >> >>xml:lang attributes are considered to be 'part of' a literal. >> >>This is an issue that has caused some confusion amongst developers >>so we would need to write up a clarification of the specifications >>to explain more clearly what is going on. >> >>We would also need to modify n-triple to be able to represent the >>languague component of a literal. >> >>Advantages: >> >>This is the simplest resolution. It makes significant change to >>M&S and existing RDF processors which implemented the spec will >>be unaffected. It requires only one triple to represent a >>property with a literal value. >> >>Disadvantages: >> >>Does not represent language as a triple so requires special >>purpose processing to support, for example query. > >Another possible disadvantage?: not all literals are in some >language. It doesn't really make sense to specify a language for, >say, a decimal number or a MIME type string. Why not say that the language for those things is RDF? Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 22:28:52 UTC