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

Re: Draft minutes of the RDFCore telecon, 2002-10-18

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:33:15 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 17:27 18/10/2002 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:


>Regrets: (not listed in meeting - may be partial?)
>   Dan Brickley; Eric Miller

I thought I'd said: regrets from DanBri and DaveB.


>10.2 Do typed literals have a language identifier?
>   There was a degree of debate on this issue as to where the language
>   tag should live (in the abstract syntax, for example) and whether
>   XSD-datatyped literals (eg, xsd:string) should carry an orthogonal
>   language-tag element. Patrick Stickler outlined Nokia's use case
>   in favour of this. Opponents argued on the basis that this was
>   adding complexity to RDF literals.
>   Whether the language tag should take part in a value mapping
>   or simply be "available" to an application layer was also an
>   issue of contention. Jeremy's point was that RDF meaning was
>   realised by the model theory; to leave language tags out of the model
>   theory seemed incoherent.
>   DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have a language tag in the abstract
>         syntax

Please can the record reflect the strawpoll held on this question:

are they [datatyped literals] allowed to have a lang string in the abs syntax"?

4 preferred they do an no one couldn't live with it.

5 preferred not with one can't live with.

The can't live took precedence.

One WG member later stated that they would "object" to this decision unless 
a datatyped literal denoted a pair consisting of a value and lang string.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 07:30:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC