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

At 10:25 27/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
>>I read M&S and it said that language is part of the literal, so that is 
>>how I wrote the code.  In Jena, a literal is a pair, as defined in M&S.
>
>Well, Brian, surely you might have mentioned this before,

I did.  This has been extensively discussed before, including if, I recall 
correctly at the last face to face.  It seems I should have reminded folks 
though.  Apologies Pat.

>  when the datatyping discussion was in full progress, all predicated on 
> the assumption (and indeed the frequent explicit assertion, to which 
> nobody raised the slightest objection) that literals were strings. If 
> literals are not strings, then we have to go and do all that again, 
> because NONE of it makes any sense at all. What is the result of applying 
> the lexical-to-value mapping of xsd:number to the pair ("34", "french") ? 
> Is it the pair (34, "french" ) ? What would that mean ?

I had assumed that the mapping would be applied just to the string part and 
ignore the language.


>>The Jena team is committed to modifying Jena to track the decisions of 
>>the WG.  Whatever decision the WG makes on this issue, we will 
>>implement.  However, I would ask the WG, whether they feel that they 
>>would owe me, and other developers, an explanation for why, having gone 
>>to the trouble of implementing the spec correctly, we should be asked to 
>>change our code.
>>
>>To be clear Patrick,  I have not seen anything in what you have written 
>>that  comes close to an explanation of why this change would be a good 
>>thing.  If there is something I have missed, then could I trouble you 
>>please to repeat it, or to provide a reference.  I am entirely open to 
>>being persuaded by good reasons.  However, I do not consider, "because 
>>Patrick says so" to be a good reason.
>>
>>A good reason might have the form "If we do it as m&s says, problem x 
>>occurs".
>
>Well, one problem for us is that we will have to re-open the datatyping 
>discussion again from square one. For example, if literals can be pairs, 
>then we could put the datatype name in the second slot of the pair, - a 
>solution which I believe was considered, but rejected on the grounds that 
>literals were NOT pairs, as I recall.

I recall that suggestion being made.  I don't recall it being explicitly 
rejected or the reasons for such rejection.  I accept that I perhaps should 
have pointed out the relation to xml:lang.

Brian

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 02:32:52 UTC