- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:24:43 +0300
- To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 03 September, 2002 22:25 > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: 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 You are missing my point entirely. I am not asserting that xml:lang is part of the XML Schema datatype interpretation of the literal. I am asserting that the xml:lang code is part of the *RDF* representation of the literal, and made available to *RDF* applications, and when it comes to interpret the unicode string portion of a literal in terms of a datatype, that xml:lang code is not relevant. Let me repeat again, in case the above was not sufficiently clear: The xml:lang code is *not* part of RDF Datatyping, even though it might be included in the structure of an RDF literal. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 02:25:06 UTC