- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:43:33 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, public-rdf-text@w3.org
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > Re. the above, I now realize (as everyone else also probably already does) > that empty lang tags isn't really the issue here. Even if lang tags aren't > empty, rdf:text cannot make its '@' marker be optional, as that would render > "foo@baz"^^rdf:text ambiguous: it could be foo with tag baz, or foo@baz with > no tag. > > Sorry it took a while for this to percolate up to consciousness. Maybe I'm missing something too, but this would not be necessary (there would) if rdf:text corresponded to the set of language tagged literals only - not including what is already covered by xsd:string. i.e. rdf:text and xsd:string would be disjoint. Is there a design goal that was satisfied by making rdf:text include xs:string as a subclass? -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 20:44:35 UTC