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

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12 language-tagged literals

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:09:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4E23092B.6090202@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 17/07/11 03:43, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> >  +1
>> >  but I have a suggestion as well as to how to make rdf:LangString a datatype.
>> >
>> >  I'd rather make DATATYPE("foo"@en) be honest and say that it returns datatype rdf:LangString.
>> >
>> >  If we don't want to go down the route of modifying the L2V(d) mapping to work on that "foo"@en form (Pat's 'move the quotes out one level') then we could use the machinery in the parser process where is is currently.
>> >
>> >  Define the lexical space of rdf:LangString to be the empty set.  That makes it impossible to write a valid rdf:LangString in ^^ form.  Maybe someday, some future WG will change this but it will leave current RDF valid.
>> >
>> >  The value space is still<Unicode string, language tag>.
> BUt if the lexical space is empty, then the only (mathematically) possible L2V mapping is the empty mapping, so this value space is irrelevant. None of it can be denoted by any literal, if we follow the current datatyping specs.
> Pat


Where does it say L2V is a surjective function?

Received on Sunday, 17 July 2011 16:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:07 UTC