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

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