- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:34:45 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:16 21/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] >Motivations are: >- uniform framework >- addresses TBL's desire that XML is not built-in at the lowest level to RDF >- provides argument why lang tags are part of literal >- gives an example of a non-XSD type system that Brian is prepared to >defend. I'm sorry, I'm maybe being contradictory on this. This proposal means that either: 1) A datatyped literal denotes a value, in which case RDF datatypes map a pair (lex, lang) to a value which is contrary to the xsd datatyping model 2) A datatype literal denotes a pair (val, lang) and then we have (speaking loosely) French integers being different from English integers, i.e. <jenny> <age> "10"-"fr"-<http://...#decimal> . <johnny> <age> "10"-"en"-<http://...#decimal> . does not entail <jenny> <age> _:l . <johnny> <age> _:l . I really don't want to go anywhere near 2. No one wants to declare the existing Nokia data illegal, but I currently see a choice between: o following the xsd datatyping model (except we play a little fast and loose on the legacy) o or blessing the current Nokia data I suggest that if we choose the latter, we are in for heavy last call comments. I doubt that the schema datatypes decision that lang was not a factor in the mapping was taken lightly. Brian
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 10:32:17 UTC