Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12 language-tagged literals

On 16 Jul 2011, at 16:52, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> I'd rather make DATATYPE("foo"@en) be honest and say that it returns datatype rdf:LangString.

You cannot do so without a hack.

Assuming you want to do that, the only question is whether that hack goes into the RDF spec or into the SPARQL spec.

I think it should go into the SPARQL spec.

Assuming that the rdf:PlainLiteral spec gets updated along the lines I suggested in [1], then that hack would even be nicely consistent with OWL and RIF.

If we put the hack into RDF, then the updated rdf:PlainLiteral spec would have to become a hack on top of another hack, and it would make it harder to get buy-in for updating that spec.



Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 18:36:53 UTC