- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:38:32 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-06 20:45, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > > > >>> Additional issue: >>> >>> I think it is also necessary to clarify the relationship >>> between xml:lang and xsd:lang, as it seems that the latter >>> is the range of the former, but this has never been >>> explicitly defined. >> >> In the OMG MT, >> aaa rdf:type rdf:Datatype . >> would entail >> aaa rdf:range aaa . >> which may seem odd but is required to allow both subproperty of >> rdf:value and also range/type assignments. And it does make semantic >> sense in the MT. >> >> So with this convention, I think that using either xml:lang or >> xsd:lang as an RDF datatype will implicitly assume that they are >> treated as identical as far as RDF is concerned. > >But they're not identitical. They are related, but not the >same. One is a property which ascribes language context >to some resource. The other is a controlled, enumerated >vocabulary of language codes. These are not the same thing. >If the MT treats them as the same. Then something is wrong. OK, let me back off from this, as I don't know what Im talking about. I only meant that being ones own range is a characteristic of datatypes in the proposed simple MT. If there's more to this xml/xsd distinction than that, then forget it. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:37:54 UTC