W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: language-tagged literal datatypes

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:11:53 +0100
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <21D3D7A9-E667-4A1C-A7FE-E07858C72583@cyganiak.de>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>

On 22 Aug 2011, at 08:59, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Here's an attempt to make both of them happy...
> Option 2c: All literals have a type. rdf:LangString is a special type,
> with an empty lexical space, and a value space containing pairs of the
> form <string,langtag>; obviously, its L2V mapping is empty. Literals
> with datatype rdf:LangString are special in that they are represented
> (in the abstract syntax) directly by their value, rather than by a
> lexical form. DATATYPE("foo"@en) returns rdf:LangString, following the
> normal rules.

This general direction works for me.

Terminology question. What's the “lexical form” of a language-tagged string?

a) it's a pair of string and language tag
b) it's just the string; the language tag is not considered part of the lexical form
c) it doesn't have one, only typed literals have a lexical form

My preference would be b), because it seems nicely consistent with the use of the term for typed literals.

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 16:12:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:08 UTC