- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:58:30 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ext pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
> Again, there are better ways to model language qualification than > xml:lang (even though at the expense of additional triples) and > the fact that lang tags for plain literals are invisible to generic > inference rules is IMO a far greater shortcoming of the final > solution than not having lang tags on XML literals. But that's another > (and probably needless, at this moment) discussion. This perhaps suggests that what we should be doing is noting we were not chartered to improve the I18N support in RDF, but however feel that there is at least room for exploration - requirements gathering etc. Hence we could create a new issue "I18N and the semantic web" and postpone it for consideration by the coordination group. I believe we have already fulfilled our charter obligations to clarify the I18N support already in M&S; we have also updated much of the M&S work in light of advances in charmod; we have made it much clearer how XMLLiteral is meant to work. We have exceeded what we had to do, but I fear that there is still more that could be done, and probably should be done in the next phase. We have postponed one I18N issue to do with language ranges, I wonder if we should not at least suggest to the CG that, after RDF and OWL are at Rec, it would be worth having a task force with adequate I18N IG support to at least scope what else could be done. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 06:58:58 UTC