- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:40:55 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>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 > Graham). > + retain syntactic tidiness on strings > > A proposal with the above features would get my enthusiastic support > (despite any backward compatibility concerns). > > Jeremy Jeremy, thank you for spending thought on the issue. I believe we discussed several options on the list months ago. I think that it'd be more elegant to represent language-tagged words and XML structures as bNodes with some 'standard' properties, and leave literals as plain character strings. Despite my concerns about the current treatment of literals, I feel uneasy about raising the issue again (although it may technically be still on the table given the pending replies of the issue raisers). I'd like to ask the chair to recommend whether and how we should proceed on that. I believe that it is important to do a good job on literals since they are one of the most fundamental language elements of RDF. Sergey
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 07:44:38 UTC