- From: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:58:24 -0800
- To: "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Patrick Stickler said: [Brian McBride said:] > >> If literals are pairings of string and language, then let's > >> represent them that way everywhere. > > Because the above is not the case. No RDF parser I've used thus far > uses anything but a string representation for a literal, nor gives any > regard to xml:lang attributes. I use an older parser, RDFFilter, which does provide this info. > That said, our options appear to be that either we > > a) change to a structured representation for literals everywhere, or > b) generate triples in some fashion to capture the language context > in the graph, or > c) say that xml:lang only lives in the XML space, for RDF parsers, > but not in the RDF space, in the graph, for RDF applications. B is in direct contradiction to the M&S spec. C does not accomplish the task of giving RDF applications access to any language tag that of a literal. A is what the spec says now. I realize that you are trying to make a case for changing that, but do not find the argument "nobody does it that way" convincing since that is the way I've been dealing with xml:lang. Ron
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 16:58:56 UTC