RE: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 May, 2003 13:36
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com;
> w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda
> 
> 
> At 13:10 09/05/2003 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >"We prefer one of the options 1-4 over no change" - Yes
> >
> >If Yes, then
> >
> >    Prefered options: 4, 1
> >    Can live with:    2
> >    Can't live with:  3 (reason: making the wrapper real)
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Thanks for input - its great to have.  Could you expound a 
> little on the 
> can't live with - why does making the wrapper real cause you 
> a problem?

Because it's not part of the literal as expressed by the
author in the RDF/XML and thus one cannot trust that
applications consuming that literal down the pipe will
know if the wrapper element was added by the author or
an RDF parser.

I'm presuming that it is not illegal to say

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#something">
      <ex:foo rdf:parseType="Literal">
         <rdf-wrapper xml:lang="en">
            <p>Foo</p>
         </rdf-wrapper>
      </ex:foo>
   </rdf:Description>

How do you differentiate that case with the following:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#something" xml:lang="en">
      <ex:foo rdf:parseType="Literal">
         <p>Foo</p>
      </ex:foo>
   </rdf:Description>

In short, it smacks of being a hack, and not good design,
and we do not have time to explore all the possible implications
of taking this path.

It was one thing to posit some abstraction of a wrapper element,
it is something *very* different to make that wrapper element
a real thing.

Cheers,

Patrick

Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 07:40:30 UTC