RE: typed literals and language tags (original) (raw)

-----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">

Foo

How do you differentiate that case with the following:

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

Foo

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