- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:11:53 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pierre-Antoine,
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.
Best,
Richard
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 16:12:23 UTC