- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:15:29 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>> >>>Patrick Stickler said:
>
>[...]
>
>> > That said, the M&S view that the language is "part of" the
>>> literal is not quite right, and probably should be adjusted
>>> (or removed), in that, as with datatyping, language is a
>>> property of the occurrence (context) of the literal
>>> and not the literal itself.
>
>M&S defines language to be part of the literal. Its simple: a
>literal is a pair ("string", "lang").
If that is what a literal is, why have we been using examples like
"35" during the entire datatyping discussion? (Should these have been
("35", "Mathematics") ?) How does one define the application of a
datatype mapping to a (string, lang) pair ???
>My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change
>this. Do you have one Patrick?
>
>> And especially since literals are
>>> now tidy,
>
>The pair above is just as tidy as "string".
I think the point was that literals *without lang* are tidy, which is
my understanding of the current situation.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:15:33 UTC