- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:26:13 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <a> <b> "foo"<dt1> . > > > > > > > > > > > > The latter is easier to parse. > > > > > > > > > > Oh! yeah verily. > > > > > > > >I was also wondering about that myself for similar reasons but didn't > > > >expect anyone else was worrying about such things, and wasn't going > > > >to propose it. > > > > > > > >+1 then > > > > > > I think that gives you enough of a mandate to do it that way in what you > > > write up. > > > > I understood DanC wanted something with a separator > > in between, e.g. <a> <b> "foo"^^<dt1> > > I then wonder where the possible langstring would > > fit, is it then "chat"-fr^^xsd:string or in N-Triples > > "chat"-fr^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string> ? > > This is still going to be a single node, right? Even when > N3 processes it? > > I'm not an N3 expert, but I'm presuming the above ^^ syntax > is not meant to force some kind of expansion into triples or > any other structure in terms of the abstract syntax, right? in that proposal it is a single node (which is not my own preference as you know; why else do we have RDF, interpretation props, etc.; having now up to 4 pieces of information in one node i.e. XML bit, lexical form, lang string and datatype-uri, not to mention the (un)allowable combinations is not very kiss) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 08:26:52 UTC