- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 22:18:07 +0100
- 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. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:20:26 UTC