- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:45:54 -0700
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Apparently there's no consensus yet on ISSUE-30 [1]. I'm trying to summarize the of open questions in this mail. I'll also add my personal opinion about these questions. Please add your opinion by replying to this mail and leaving the question as well as the other people's responses- Shall we use a flag (hydra:expandedRepresentation) to switch to "expanded representation" or should this be an extensible attribute (hydra:valueRepresentation)? ------------------------- Markus: I don't see much value in making this extensible. I find it more important to increase interoperability by just having two ways to expand IRI template values. Shall we use two ^ when adding the type or like Turtle two ^ ------------------------- Markus: IMO one ^ is enough. Actually, I would prefer another character such as $ as it makes it clearer that the serialization is *not* Turtle. Must the datatype xsd:string always be omitted? ------------------------- Markus: I'd would be fine making this a "the datatype xsd:string MAY be omitted" Must the datatype rdf:langString always be omitted/present? ------------------------- Markus: I'd say "the datatype rdf:langString MAY be omitted if a language tag is present" There seems to be consensus that by default, IRI template values should be expanded by only using the lexical representation of the value or the IRI (no quoting). Does anyone disagree with this? There also seem to be consensus that we don't want to do any escaping of strings/IRIs, right? [1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/30 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2014 02:46:26 UTC