W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Bad job on literals?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:42:17 +0100
To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAEAHCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> At the last telecon we briefly discussed the issue related to the
> semantics of literals.
> Per F2F decision, the literals have three components (unicode string,
> language tag, and a bit). This representation may not be the
> best.

Despite my earlier reply ...

Thinking about your message, I realise that I agree that we could have
done a significantly better job.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing an alternative proposal; and
suspect there would be one that:
+ would address your concerns (which I have previously had the
impression were shared by Tim BL and DanC)
+ address my semantic concerns (which are also held by Patrick and
+ retain syntactic tidiness on strings

A proposal with the above features would get my enthusiastic support
(despite any backward compatibility concerns).

Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 14:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:58 UTC