- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:24:47 +0200
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick wrote: [[[ Consider the following use case: <rdf:Description rdf:about="#TheEnglishLanguage"> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en" rdfd:type="&xsd;string">English</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fi" rdfd:type="&xsd;string">Englanti</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="sp" rdfd:type="&xsd;string">Ingles</rdfs:label> </rdf:Description> which I would expect to produce <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"English"-en . <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"Englanti"-fi . <#TheEnglishLanguage> rdfs:label xsd:string"Ingles"-sp . so that my RDF application can choose which label is most appropriate, per the intentionally specified language. ]]] Paul Biron and Ashok Malhotra wrote: (in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string ) [[[ Thus, string, as a simple type that can contain only characters but not child elements, is often not suitable for representing text. In such situations, a complex type that allows mixed content should be considered. For more information, see Section 5.5 Any Element, Any Attribute of [XML Schema Language: Part 2(sic) Primer]. ]]] David Fallside wrote: (in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#any ) [[[ In another example, we define a text type which is similar to the text type defined in XML Schema's introductory type library (see also Section 5.4.1), and is suitable for internationalized human-readable text. The text type allows an unrestricted mixture of character content and element content from any namespace, for example Ruby annotations, along with an optional xml:lang attribute. ]]] I think the XML Schema intent is clear. xml:lang is not part of the datatype lexical form or value; if you want that sort of functionality you are best advised to allow any xml, i.e. rdf:parseType="Literal" Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 15:26:17 UTC