- 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