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

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:23:08 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF73C1B433.4AE2F0EB-ON41256B6D.00640F33@agfa.be>


> I was pretty careful to be sure the way we resolved
> the lang issue doesn't matter to the model theory.

I wouldn't have expected anything else from you ;-)

> To the model theory, a literal is still just a string. We can
> encode two strings in one, after all, no? Here's the
> n-triples design DaveB and I kicked around after the meeting:
>    ("abc", 'en') ->    "abc"-en
>    ("abc",  none) ->   "abc"
>    ("abc", 'fr') ->    "abc"-fr


> Also, for XML literals, we'll have xml("canonical-form...", "en").

then, we could also write
  :Mary :age xml(<int xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">45</int>,) .
or some such (in canonical form, which I forgot)

> The point is: the literal is syntactically evident in the RDF document.


Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 13:23:50 UTC

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