- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:42:07 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 10:06 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Sandro, > > On 7 Sep 2011, at 16:40, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > Option 2 might be worse than Option 1; to put it simply, it seems to be > > making tagged literals be datatyped literals by making up a new, > > different, *non-XML-standard* sort of datatyped literal. > > This is not true for 2c. > > It is compatible with the XSD notion of datatypes. That was the whole point. I'm giving you my skeptical look. |-) A datatype with an empty lexical space? I see some discussion in XSD 1.1 about "ineffable" values, points in value spaces which have no lexical representation, but it seems like quite a stretch to define an XML Schema Datatype with a full, useful value space and an empty lexical space. In terms of code: with this design, we need a different API for language tagged strings than for other data values, right? We can't use .lexrep to get the lexical representation, since there is none. For my example code snippets, your option 2c (which Ivan has labeled 2d) still looks just like option 1, I think. - Sandro > Best, > Richard >
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 14:42:18 UTC