Re: language-tagged literal datatypes

On 08/22/2011 06:11 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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.

well, the notion of "lexical form" only makes sense in the context of a
datatype, and in relation with a "value". In your proposal,
rdf:LangString is not a real datatype, and there is no L2V mapping, so
at this stage, speaking of the "lexical form" of the language-tagged
string seems pointless to me...

I'd rather swallow it all and consider that there is no lexical form,
but rather than the language-tagged string is a value in itself...
(which, in a sense, is already the case for xsd:string as L2V is the
identity mapping).

Note that, if you really want language-tagged strings to have a lexical
value (that does not embed the language tag), you might be interested in
my proposal 3a from another sub-thread...

  pa

> 
> Best,
> Richard

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 17:00:46 UTC