- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:16:33 +0200
- To: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-30 21:58, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > Can the TDL / S authors say something about where they see how the > xml:lang attribute will appear in the data type models. > > Use this pseudo N-triples to talk about language-enabled literals: > "foo"(en) > "foo" - no language > > Thanks > > Dave Firstly, was it not decided that xml:lang was to be removed or at least ignored? Secondly, this is a matter of value qualification (or statement qualification, depending on your particular bent) At present, it seems the preferred way of handling this is by using a blank node that has the literal value and the qualifiers hanging off it. E.g. X ex:title _:1 . _:1 rdf:value "foo" . _:1 xml:lang "en" . [or in RDF/XML: <rdf:Description rdf:ID="X"> <ex:title xml:lang="en" rdf:value="foo"/> </rdf:Description> with the datatyping presumption xml:lang rdfs:range xsd:lang . or an alternative is reification X ex:title "foo" . _:s rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:s rdf:subject X . _:s rdf:predicate ex:title . _:s rdf:object "foo" . _:s xml:lang "en" . So, this really isn't a datatyping issue at all. It's a qualification/scoping issue. The literal "foo" does not have a datatype of (xml:lang,"en") but rather that is a property of the value (not the literal). Right? Cheers, 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 Thursday, 31 January 2002 04:40:04 UTC