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

Re: 2001-09-07#5 Literals (use cases/test inputs, please?)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:50:43 +0100
Message-ID: <3BD148F3.2050700@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, timbl <timbl@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:


>>Doesn't this just represent a deficiency in cwm?
> Perhaps, or perhaps it represents a deficiency in
> the design of literals. Why is it we can query
> on any other property of anything using RDF properties,
> but we can't query the language of a label using
> RDF properties?

Yes and there are a few more like that, aren't there:

   o Why can't I query the namespace of property using properties?
   o Why can't I query the uri of resource using properties?

> Regardless, my request stands:
> | please give an
> | example (or several examples) of how RDF users use xml:lang,
> | and what software they use to process it according to
> | their expecatations?

Why are you bringing this up again?  We have been round this already.
My recollection is that we examined this issue, we looked at use cases, we found 
some where the M&S spec of how to handle xml:lang was useful and we found no 
major problems with it.

We then put that issue aside for a while to look at other issues with literals, 
since it was not right to make any decision about xml:lang without considering 
those other issues at the same time.  We have since had a look at the parseType 
literal issue and are now considering datatyping.

If you want to bring the xml:lang part of the problem up again at this stage, 
then the question I have is what are these other critical issues to which you 
referred earlier.  Please make the case there is a real problem.

Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 05:55:20 UTC

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