- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:40:42 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 4/14/2011 9:33 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> Sorry, thinko, what I meant was:
>
>> I just think it's simpler and less weird to have datatyped literals and languaged literals and nothing else.
>
> I disagree, and I think it's very odd that the canonical serialisation would be:
>
> "chat"^^xsd:string }
> "chat" }
> "chat"@en-GB } - all xsd:strings
> "chat"@fr }
>
> v's
>
> "chat" }
> "chat"^^xsd:string }
> "chat"@en-GB } - all plain literals
> "chat"@fr }
>
> e.g. there's one syntax that's slightly weird if you normalise to plain literal, and three is you normalise to xsd:string. IMHO.
I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here. How do we
observe the difference between these two views? I've been picturing that
with my view (normalize to xs:string) that
datatype("foo") = xs:string
It seems like you're mostly interested in the canonical serialization? I
don't have any objection to the canonical serialization of
"foo"^^xs:string being "foo", if we're worried about bytes. I just think
having theses things in the model without a datatype and without a
language introduces (unnecessarily) a 3rd thing that you have to deal
with when querying, programming, etc. I'm happy for the serialization
issues to make it as easy as possible to deal with xs:string's, though.
Lee
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:41:20 UTC