- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:50:53 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 24 May 2011, at 14:17, Andy Seaborne wrote: > To date, the result of parsing in all toolkits I'm aware of is that the output is RDF abstract syntax, or though of as such. The result of parsing is a data structure in a programming language. How this maps to the abstract syntax is implementation-specific. One can implement the proposal without changing the data structure, just by changing the (implicit) mapping. Old options: "lexical form" with datatype <"lexical form", langtag> "lexical form" New options: "lexical form" with datatype <"lexical form", langtag> with datatype rdf:LanguageTaggedString Implementers can treat presence of langtag + absence of a datatype as indicating the type rdf:LanguageTaggedString. Furthermore, implementers have the choice not to change. Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 14:51:22 UTC