- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:20:31 +0200
- To: "McBennett, Pat" <McBennettP@DNB.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Pat, > As an 'off-the-top-of-my-head' suggestion - has anyone considered asking the RFC6570 authors or 'community' about extending it to support what we require here? Being fully RFC6570-compliant while also getting datatypes and language support would be great, no? I think it was deliberately out-of-scope for RFC6570. I.e., this RFC assumes that the application has already decided on a datatype-to-string conversion method for use in the template. That makes it most broadly applicable. Before I brought this up on the mailing list, people here seemed to assume the same. Because indeed, it is straightforward for most things. 30 is just "30" and "Paris" is "Paris". And usually there are other ways to indicate languages (i.e., another field). However, since some applications (like mine) might have a stricter RDF domain where there is a difference between URIs and strings with the same value, it makes sense to define this. But I think it really belongs in Hydra, not RFC6570b. Best, Ruben
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 09:21:04 UTC