- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 10:48:28 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:24 04/09/2002 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: [...] >I am asserting that the xml:lang code is part of the *RDF* representation >of the literal I am not clear on what basis this assertion is being made. Have I missed the point, or is this not the very issue that is being "discussed". Perhaps being clear what the issue is and discussion of pro's and cons might be more productive than dogmatic assertion of individual viewpoints. I think the question might be: Should the abstract syntax of a datatyped literal have an xml:lang component? So far, I have seen: 1) If its not then one can't usefully say: <rdfs:label rdf:lang="en" rdf:datatype="...string">foo</... <rdfs:label rdf:lang="fr" rdf:datatype="...string">bar</... 2) the xml:lang component has no effect on the mapping from the lexical form to the value. On this last point, do we expect that always to be the case? What would we do if a new version of schema datatypes did take xml:lang into account? Do we know they are unlikely to do this? Brian
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 05:50:15 UTC