- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:59:17 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sandro@w3.org, public-rdf-text@w3.org
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: >>> Incidentally, the fact that you can filter using the DATATYPE function >>> in sparql is another hint that something is amiss. By my earlier >>> analysis, the DATATYPE function should never return rdf:PlainLiteral, >>> according to our spec. >> Indeed, *according to our spec*. This is why I prefer Option 2 which makes >> this point clear. > > I would modify it to not try to make it invalid, but instead to make > it clear we say nothing about the lexical to value mapping of such > literals within RDF and SPARQL. > > In other words, you can write them, but it won't mean what you think it would. > > -Alan Hmmm, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you objecting against Option 2? Arguing for Option 1? I was speaking in favor of Option 2 and can live with Option 3. Summarizing, we have the following votes at the moment: Option 1: 0 (sandro) 1 (pat) 1 (peter) -1 (axel) Option 2: 0 (sandro) 0 (pat) 0 (peter) 1 (axel) Option 3: 1 (sandro) 0 (pat) 0 (peter) 0 (axel) Are you proposing something different? best, Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 22:59:57 UTC