- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:42:37 +0200
- To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-12 20:00, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM> wrote:
> Patrick, what triples do you propose be generated for:
>
> <rdf:Description>
> <ex:foo xml:lang="en">foo</ex:foo>
> </rdf:Description>
If we *have* to generate triples (and I would argue that
forcing the generation of triples before "fixing" the serialization,
which has enough problems, is asking for trouble) then
_:1 ex:foo _:2 .
_:2 rdf:value "foo" .
_:2 xml:lang "en" .
The problem with this, is that xml:lang is likely to have a
range such as xsd:lang, and thus what we really need/want is
_:1 ex:foo _:2 .
_:2 rdf:value "foo" .
_:2 xml:lang _:3 .
_:3 rdf:value "en" .
_:3 rdf:dtype xsd:lang .
or alternately
_:1 ex:foo _:2 .
_:2 rdf:value "foo" .
_:2 xml:lang _:3 .
_:3 rdf:value "en" .
presuming elsewhere
xml:lang rdfs:range xsd:lang .
In either case, it means that the parser needs RDF knowledge
in order to recognize xml:lang as having a datatype range
and generate the appropriate idiom in the graph.
The problem, I think, is a syntactic one, not a logical one
or any problem with the datatyping methodology.
The structured literal (or even URI encoded literal) approach
is clearly easier -- though not necessarily better.
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 06:41:15 UTC