- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:43:17 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > This feels weird. Ok, "foo" is of type string, even though the type is implicit, I can understand that. But why is it no longer a string if I tag it as English? Shouldn't it still have an implicit type of string? So you have replaced one weird thing (multiple ways of representing a string) with another weird thing (a notion of string datatypes that doesn't make sense). > > I think the sensible way would be: > 1) every literal has *both* a datatype and a (possibly empty) language tag; > 2) of the built-in datatypes, only xsd:string can have non-empty language tags; > 3) plain literals and rdf:PlainLiterals don't exist; > 4) "foo" in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string. > 5) "foo"@en in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string@en. I would love this, if it were workable. I just didn't think that that sort of change to the model was feasible to warrant consideration. Lee > > This *might* work better than the rdf:PlainLiteral mess when translated into spec changes, but raises BC issues, and requires changes to syntax specs to add the syntactic sugar, so I prefer the proposal that says implementations MAY unify to plain literals, as it doesn't require changes to the abstract syntax. > >> As long as the surface forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string get normalized to the same thing (or systems have permission to do such normalization) then I'm happy. > > Good to hear that. > > Best, > Richard >
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 15:43:37 UTC