Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals

On 17/05/11 07:53, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Hi all,
> here's another idea:
> why not consider language tags as special datatypes?
> In other words,
>    "chat"@en
> would be a shortcut for something like
>    "chat"^^rdflang:en
> (even if the above notation could be forbidden in serialization
> syntaxes, alla rdf:PlainLiteal)
> this would
> * make everything much more regular
> * while matching the current behaviour (a literal could not possibly
> have a "language" datatype and another datatype)
> * and make it more natural (in my view) to unify language-less literals
> with xsd:string.
> Also, it seems to me that upper layers (SPARQL, programming APIs) could
> continue working as they do (their current behaviour can easily be
> emulated on top of this new model) and smoothly evolve to align to the
> new model.
>    pa

I have believed something like this would make the best solution.  I 
think it needs working out though. For example, would the type hierarchy 
work to express the structured nature of language tags?  Using ""@en as 
the syntax form gives compatibility.

For this WG, I prefer to leave this possibility open and simply convert 
xsd:string's simple literals as in the original proposal.


Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 09:13:02 UTC