- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:11:30 +0200
- To: <fmanola@mitre.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-12 20:28, "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote: > Patrick says the language is non-existent in the > RDF graph. Insofar as most examples, representations, DT discussions, etc. I.e. that based on most materials and discussions, it seems to be a rather common view that literals are simple strings. I've yet to see a single example where the literal was represented as a string-language pairing. Clearly, some implementations do treat literals as pairings. It was stated that ARP does this, but if I enter <dc:title xml:lang="en">World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title> in the W3C RDF validator, I don't see 'en' reflected in either the triples or the graph. Is it then optional functionality not used by the validator? Or is that functionality in a later version of ARP than what is used by the validator? (this isn't a criticism or refutation, just an honest question) > 3. P221 also says: "All RDF applications must specify whether or not > language tagging in literals is > significant; that is, whether or not language is considered when > performing string matching or other processing." [Note: RDF > application, not XML application]. If the language tagging is not > available in what an RDF application processes, this doesn't appear to > make any sense; the application would have nothing to consider. If an > RDF application always processes an XML serialization, things would be > OK. But if an RDF application only processes triples (not an XML > serialization), it seems to me we need to do one of two things: > > a. dispense with most, if not all, of P221: not just the part that > says that the language is considered part of the literal, but also the > part that talks about RDF applications possibly considering language > tagging in string matching and other processing. > > b. accept that the language information is *somehow* there in the > literal (although the M&S doesn't say how). Effectively, that sounds > like a pair. Agreed. > [actually, maybe there's a c.: change what we mean by "RDF > application") That sounds like fun (not ;-) 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 07:10:08 UTC