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

Re: Typed literals: current status

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 21 Oct 2002 10:49:11 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1035215353.9851.3986.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 09:34, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> 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.

I don't see why not.

> 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.

The risk of 'hey, why did you do it that way?' comments seems
higher, to me, if we choose 1.

>  I doubt that the schema datatypes decision that lang was not a 
> factor in the mapping was taken lightly.
> 
> Brian
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 11:50:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:28 EDT