- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:28:25 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Hello Pat, Many thanks for your mail. At 20:52 03/07/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>The wrapper is one solution to carry the language information. >>Of course you can choose whatever solution fits you best, but >>you should not forget that there are other solutions. One of >>them would be to handle XML Literals in the same way as plain >>literals, carrying the language information separately. If that >>can be done for plain literals, why can it not be done for >>XML Literals? > >Martin puts his finger on the key point. It could be, but we chose a >design for XML literals in which the XML 'label' is treated as a built-in >datatype; which then puts a strong design constraint on us to treat it >uniformly with the other datatypes, and that in turn requires either than >it not have lang tags or that all other datatype namespaces have lang >tags. The latter option is unworkable, so we chose the former. I definitely do want to leave the choice of the actual details to the RDF Core WG, but I just want to confirm that the design that Pat laid out below would be as acceptable as wrappers or any other, equivalent design. I also have to admit that trying to treat XML literals exactly like all other datatypes looks to me quite like the proverbial hammer that sees everything as a nail. Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 11:23:09 UTC