W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:18:07 +0100
Message-ID: <3F049D8F.7040200@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
CC: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org

Jos De_Roo wrote:

> [...]
>>There are technical reasons (to do with identity substitution on
>>datatype names) why it is unworkable to have a 'special' datatype
>>which violates the structural assumptions of the datatyping model,
>>and it is not feasible or desireable to include lang tags in the
>>datatyping model. So *if* we treat XML literals as being typed by an
>>XML datatype, it is infeasible to include lang tags as part of the
>>literal structure. They could be included as part of the XML literal
>>string itself, by requiring all such literals to have a special
>>rdf-wrapper onto which the lang tag can be attached by normal XML
>>conventions; but then of course the actual XML literal string no
>>longer looks like the XML fragment included in the RDF/XML document.
>>But on the other hand, from view X, I guess that would just be an
>>implementation detail.
> I agree with that summary.
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

I have swung from preferring keeping the wrapper in order to hold the 
langtag to not having the wrapper. I think this reflects "view G" in pat's 
helpful terminology. The wrapper was never really part of what one is 
trying to say.


Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:23 UTC