Re: Summary of strings, markup, and language tagging in RDF (resend)

At 11:58 03/07/03 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>>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.

Thinking forward about what to do next is definitely a good idea.


>I believe we have already fulfilled our charter obligations to clarify the 
>I18N support already in M&S;

Just for the record, I think that both the current removal of xml:lang
from xml literals and the creation of a distinction between xml
literals with plain text only and plain literals are in conflict with
the M&S spec, and I think you have agreed with at least one of these
points.

Regards,    Martin.


>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 11:23:11 UTC