- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:35:24 +0200
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
(agreeing with Patrick I think) My view is that the abstract syntax will say something like: A Literal Node is labelled with one of: (a) - A datatype value (b) - An rdf string literal (c) - An rdf xml literal Typical RDF/XML giving rise to (a) is: <rdf:Description> <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> (Label is <xsd:string>"val") (b) <rdf:Description> <eg:prop>val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> (Label is "val") (c) <rdf:Description> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> (Label is xml"val") Adding an xml:lang we get: (a) <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> (Label is "val" It has to be an xsd:string, and so the language tag must be lost) (b) <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> <eg:prop>val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> Label is "val"-en (c) <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> Label is xml"val"-en The only choice is whether we allow: <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" rdf:datatype="&xsd;string>val<eg:prop> </rdf:Description> If we did then the following would be problematic <rdf:Description xml:lang="en"> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal" rdf:datatype="&xsd;string><b>val</b><eg:prop> </rdf:Description> My take is that it a syntax error. Jeremy >
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 09:36:34 UTC