Re: typed literals and language tags - two proposals

I'll write proposals for both option 2 and option 4 tomorrow morning !

That way we can have the full menu to choose from at the telecon.

Option 4 (langauge tags go for all typed literals) does make it, at least 
odd, using RDF with embedded xhtml, which I have always thought of as a 
major use case. But Dave's right to point out that it is quite tidy. We 
could probably drop the rdf-wrapper all together, since it is only there to 
carry the lang-tag. (We would still need to advise pfps and reagle of the 
changes to XMLLiteral) We also would need to highlight this to I18N-WG.

Option 2 (no change to XMLLiteral language tags deleted on other typed 
literals) - I would be surprised if we did not see that as an improvement 
on the current position.


Jeremy








Dave Beckett wrote:

>>>>Brian McBride said:
>>>>
>>At 13:39 08/05/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>These are for the Option 1 and Option 3, I will keep those names.
>>>
>>>Both options:
>>>
>>>PROPOSE reopen
>>>  pfps-08 reagle-01 reagle-02
>>>
>>This looks like a larger change than I had realised.
>>
> 
> Yes.
> 
> For option 1, reverting XML Literals into a 3rd type of literal again.
> We should revert N-Triples to use XML"foo" with no language tag,
> and the typed literals form loses its language tag too
> 
> For option 3, if I'm reading it right, the imaginary <rdf-wrapper>
> element now seems to have been made real according to the Option 3 words
> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html 
> That would be a mess. N-Triples would remove the language tag from
> the typed literals ie "foo"^^<datatypeuri>
> 
>>Can someone clearly state what advantage is gained from this.
>>
> 
> I'm not so clear on this :)   What problem are we solving?
> 
> If language tags in typed literals (of all types) are a problem,
> then remove them.  This was option 4.
> 
> The OWL tests Jeremy pointed out under Option 4 in
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposed-misc-200-xmlliteral
> are not normative so <shrug/>.   Ruby defines it's own markup elements
> for doing spans of languages.
> (also the answers are not legal N-Triples even with the OWL test
>  cases changes - a mistake I assume).
> 
> I don't think RDF M&S ever promised very strongly (or clearly!) that
> xml:lang worked over rdf:parseType="Literal" so we would be
> relatively OK to do this.  The main text on this is:
> 
> on parseType="Literal":
> 
>   [[The value 'Literal' specifies that the element content is to be
>   treated as an RDF/XML literal; that is, the content must not be
>   interpreted by an RDF processor]]
> 
> on xml:lang:
> 
>   [[The xml:lang attribute may be used as defined by [XML] to
>   associate a language with the property value. There is no specific
>   data model representation for xml:lang (i.e., it adds no triples to
>   the data model); the language of a literal is considered by RDF to
>   be a part of the literal. An application may ignore language
>   tagging of a string. All RDF applications must specify whether or
>   not language tagging in literals is significant; that is, whether
>   or not language is considered when performing string matching or
>   other processing.
>   ]]
> 
>   from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
> 
> Combining those two might give that, but given the loophole that apps
> could ignore it anyway, in the former spec, ...
> 
> I need some more information still.
> 
> Dave
>

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 15:18:43 UTC