- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:06:06 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sandro@w3.org, public-rdf-text@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > 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? I was, but Jonathan doesn't like it, so I will drop it from consideration. My votes are 1) +1 2) +0 3) +0 > > 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 Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:07:07 UTC