- 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>
>>>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 ta > > 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 a > > 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? Dave
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 12:08:36 UTC