- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:44:12 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
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 > A few other bad things about that design. 1. It replaces a single literal with two triples and a blank node, or else requires inventing a URI. For users who routinely tag text with languages, this is a real burden. 2. It allows pathological RDF such as [ a rdf:LingExp; rdf:lang "en", rdf:lang "fr" ] 3. It allows missing information, such as [ a rdf:LingExp; rdf:value "chat" ] [ b rdf:LIngExp; rdf:lang "en" ] I'm sure I can think of some more by tomorrow. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 05:44:47 UTC