- From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:14:57 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: >It seems to me that what Reto is looking for is a way to define >a "primary language" for a small piece of data that itself is in >a different language. Because such divergent cases are very rare, >it seems they have been overlooked up to now. > > I don't think this cases are that rare, looking at German computer books many titles consist only of English words, however they are the German titles (the first is relevant for pronunciation, the latter for semantic processing). >To me, the right thing to do seems to be to define the "primary" >or "intended" language separately (e.g. with a separate property), >but to define that property so that it defaults to the text >processing language. > Having a primary language for Literals would be fine, however I think the text processing language (specified in the xml) should default to the primary language (which imho should be defined by means of rdf) rather than the other way round. This seems more coherent with plain-literals and particularly it does not require RDF-Processors to understand and parse XML in order to do things like filtering by language. > I'm glad to report that I just found the 'payload' module in > RSS 1.1 (http://inamidst.com/rss1.1/payload) that uses XML > Literals rather than encoding. Great! That's cool, and it would be cooler with the possibility to specify a language for the whole payload (even when some of the rare cases apply). reto
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:07:11 UTC