Re: Some (more) thoughts on literals and language and XML

Graham,

If I've understood your thoughts below, it seems your
present view is equal or close to

Alternative 0: can live with
Alternative 1: preferred
Alternative 2: can't live with

???

Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 July, 2003 15:06
Subject: Some (more) thoughts on literals and language and XML


>
> All,
>
> I think that many of our ongoing difficulties stem from the introduction
of
> the XML datatyped literals without any real consensus as to what these
> actually are.  I, for one, didn't fully recognize this lack of consensus
> until Pat's posting [1] on the matter.  (I think the signs were previously
> there to see -- e.g. in the discussion and uncertainty about XSD datatypes
> -- but I for one failed to do so.)
>
> If this is so, then I think Patrick's (first) proposal [2] has an
important
> point in its favour:  it excises the feature for which there is lacking
> consensus.  In so doing, considering Martin's response [3] to my earlier
> message [4], I think it also satisfies the essential I18N requirements, in
> that it removes any artificial distinction between literals with markup
and
> literals without markup, and allows either to carry a language tag.  (I
> note, en passant, that my message [4] was stated conditionally, not as an
> absolute position in its own right.)
>
> Conversely, I think that Patrick's second proposal [5] is a step in
> entirely the wrong direction because it introduces a new concept of XML
> literals, and I'm not convinced we would find any more consensus about
that
> than we would have about XML datatyped literals.
>
> Finally, I observe that dropping XML literals from the RDF specification
> does not preclude the later introduction of XML literals as currently
> defined -- they are simply another datatype.  The difference would be that
> said datatype is not automatically signalled by the presence of
> parseType="Literal".
>
> My general thrust is this:  can we resolve this issue by removing features
> rather than by juggling with what appears to be a problematic confluence
of
> requirements.
>
> #g
> --
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0067.html
>
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0131.html
>
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0124.html
>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0117.html
>
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0151.html
>
>
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 09:03:25 UTC