Re: getting language tags out of the fundamental model (ISSUE-12)

On May 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> On 5/31/2011 8:54 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> On May 31, 2011, at 10:56, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2011 7:17 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> In other words, we could say "foo"@bar is syntactic sugar for something
>>>> like [ a rdf:LinguisticExpression; rdf:language "bar"; rdf:value "foo"].
>>>> I know that doesn't address everything, but it has pretty much the same
>>>> problems everything else does being modeled in RDF.  :-)
>>> That was a design considered and rejected by the previous group. Personally I prefer it; but I don't think we should reopen that can of worms.
>> At the risk of being difficult, why not?
> We have a standard - we have interoperability - it might not be perfect - it never is (at least in somebody's book); for me the lang tag stuff is not perfect - but the amount of benefit from a major reworking is not worth the interoperability cost


Lang tags on literals are an minor nuisance to 90% of users but absolutely vitally important to the other 10%, and they will be extremely upset if we tinker with the design for reasons of mere elegance, or in order to simplify our 'fundamental model'. Nobody outside the WG gives a tinker's toenail for the fundamentalitude of the fundamental model of RDF.

Also, the other design options are simpler and more elegant in any case. The least change, and the most elegance,  is gotten by leaving the  current syntax completely unchanged and simply declaring that "foo"@en has a new datatype. 


> Jeremy

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 05:36:16 UTC