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

RE: Languageless Typed Literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:21:54 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBB2@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

My preferences, in order, most prefered to least preferred:

Option 4, 1, 3, 2

> Option 4 in my mind is simply incorrect - there are XMLLiterals for which the 
> language is semantic meaningful.

Well, why is it not unreasonable to require that, where an xml:lang tag
is relevant to an XML literal, that it be specified *within* the XML 
literal. Why do we have to do it for *every* XML literal automatically?
Let those that need them specify their own wrapper elements. Not everyone
want's their literals infected by the xml:lang of the RDF/XML instance.

Likewise, one can use other means, such as reification, to assert a language
scope for the assertion (which applies to simple literals as well). This is
the approach I am beginning to take, which has the added benefit of making
the language knowledge explicitly visible to reasoners without having to
parse node labels.

So, while option 4 might require some test cases to change, it's not
necessarily "incorrect".

It may be, in fact, the most correct and optimal option.

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 05:22:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC