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

RE: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

From: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:58:24 -0800
Message-ID: <145C1D60907A4944ABAE75DE3FF6418C2C7F81@xchanger3.interwoven.com>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 16:58:56 UTC

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