- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:29:22 +0200
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
So far I am the only one to have spoken against 4 - if there are no others who join me in that position in the telecon I am currently expecting option 4 to win. Option 4 makes XMLLiteral ignore language. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com] > Sent: 09 May 2003 13:40 > To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: 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 08:40:51 UTC