W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:05:20 +0000
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
cc: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <25445.1013447120@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Patrick Stickler said:
> On 2002-02-11 17:28, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> [perhaps these should each be in their own thread?]

Here it is

> > rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within the RDF da
> > model? 
> > 
> > This was put on hold whilst we looked at datatypes.  Model and Syntax says
> > that lang is part of the literal; that no triples are generated for an
> > xml:lang.  We can choose to stick with that or change it.  Does anyone have
> > compelling reason to change it?
> I think it should not be changed, but the verbage could be clarified.
> The xml:lang attribute exists for the benefit of XML applications
> (e.g. an RDF parser) not RDF applications (e.g. an RDF query engine)
> and therefore it is reasonable that it have no representation in
> the graph (no triples generated). An XML application is free to
> select or omit elements based on the xml:lang attribute -- but
> since that is not part of the needed functionality of most (any?)
> RDF parsers, the attribute simply has no effect.

I think you are proposing changing what RDF M&S said about using
xml:lang and literals.  RDF is/was linked to XML and just ignoring
xml:lang is unacceptable to me, and to other applications and
communities too (Dublin Core for one).

> If individuals wish to qualify resources by language value, in a
> way that will affect queries and other graph-based operations,
> then they should do so in a way that is meaningful to RDF
> applications.
> E.g.
>    xxx ex:keyword _:1 .
>    _:1 rdf:value "pan" .
>    _:1 xml:lang _:2 .
>    _:2 rdf:value "en" .
>    _:2 rdf:dtype xsd:lang .
> Note that _:2 is a datatyped literal but _:1 is simply
> a qualified literal (qualified for language). Note also
> the relationship between the property xml:lang and the
> datatype xsd:lang.

This is requiring the use of the datatyping part of RDF (unwritten yet)
in order to do what was previously part of the core RDF M&S.  It
isn't clear where the datatyping stuff will live, so making users
require RDF+RDFS+RDF Datayping in order to do what they could do with
RDF M&S alone, seems a big step.

> That said, the M&S view that the language is "part of" the
> literal is not quite right, and probably should be adjusted
> (or removed), in that, as with datatyping, language is a
> property of the occurrence (context) of the literal
> and not the literal itself. And especially since literals are
> now tidy, an application shouldn't attach context specific
> properties such as language to globally shared literal nodes.

Or lang-literals are tidy?

Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 12:08:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC