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

Re: 2001-09-07#5 Literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:34:09 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEFECCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Short version: "SHOULD" in literal equality considered dangerous.

I am not particularly wedded to SHOULD, and next time the WG considers this
I will suggest MUST.

As for

> Presumably the alternative choices would have been to deprecate the
> language tags on RDF literals, in favor of either using XML
> with parsetype literal, <d:name rdf:parseType="literal"><span
> xml:lang="fr">chat</></>
> or RDF itself

> d:name    [ lang:french "chat" ];

> The latter I of course find by far the most manageable.
> But I am sure you have all been all around the options.

I take that to be specifically out of charter for this WG; in that I find
M&S to be consistent and clear on this and I believe that my suggested
(Unicode String,Lang-Tag?) pair representation of a literal to be a more
explicit rearticulation of what it says.

While that isn't perfect, I believe xml:lang is used by RDF users and there
is no critical problem with it.

Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 05:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC