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

RE: Bad job on literals?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:02:42 +0100
To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEAECEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> 	a) a character string
> 	b) a word in a natural language
> 	c) an XML tree
> 	d) an abstract structure that consists of a string,
>             a tag, and a bit.
> Choice d) seems ugly if we think of RDF as a foundation for the SW. If
> we go for a)-c), then the literals become polymorphic...

My understanding was we went for (d) as best reflecting the past (M&S) not as the best basis for the
future (SW).

I think there are many issues for which we might want to say that the past is not the ideal basis
for the future. But the past is non-optional.

> (2) Extensibility

> The language tags keep evolving. How do we accommodate new language
> encoding schemes gracefully?

The language tags are a dynamic set. There are mailing lists that tell you of the changes. There are
well-defined update procedures. We can have a generic dependency on xml:lang, which in turn has a
generic dependency on RFC 3066 which in turn has a generic dependency on ISO639 and ISO3166. IMO
this will have a long enough shelf life. It makes it hard to write software that "knows" all the
langauge tags, but it is only a warning message (at least in my software).

I don't find Sergey's argument compelling.

> In short, I think that we might be doing a bad job on literals.

I think we have created a clear rearticulation of M&S. That is the job we are chartered to do.

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 09:02:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC