Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals

On 13/05/11 16:43, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> 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


It would be good to understand how this all came about.  There may be 
something in the reasoning last time (or the time before that) that 
still needs to be factored in.


Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 16:01:25 UTC