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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:24:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3BD17AF9.389852FD@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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>
Brian McBride wrote:
> > 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?

Because I have looked high and low for the use cases you
refer to below, and I can't find them.

>  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.

Then it should be easy enough to satisfy my request by
pointing into the record.
What are these use cases? Who's using xml:lang, and how?
i.e. is there some software out there that I can
use as a pattern for how to implement literals in cwm?

> 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.

I didn't refer to any other critical issues: just that I can't
"see" xml:lang using rdf properties.

>  Please make the case there is a real problem.

I have made the case to my satisfaction. If you're not convinced,
then, well, you're not convinced.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 09:25:16 UTC

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