- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 12:02:06 +0100
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
James, See my response in the github issue: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/60#issuecomment-2521125941 best On 15/11/2024 16:10, James Anderson wrote: > yesterday, during the discussion on this topic it was argued that, because "the standard should reflect the reality", this requirement should be made optional. > > are there any statistics available which account for this reality? > - how many rdf processors accept and store ill-typed literals > - of those which accept, how many store literal terms uniformly, that is, with no distinguished representation for known datatypes > - of those which accept, how many distinguish known datatypes, yet still incorporate ill-typed literals in constructed graphs > - how many reject ill-typed literals > - of those which reject, how many, because it would "produce a semantic inconsistency" > - of those which reject, how many, because it would complicate processing an optimized term representation > - how many rdf processors do not reject ill-typed literals, but do exclude them from constructed graphs? > > > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com > > >
Received on Friday, 6 December 2024 11:02:10 UTC