RE: Datatyping: moving away from "literal as 3-part thing" to "literal as dt+opaque bit"

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