- From: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:28:24 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:17:59AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> I'm happy with the rdf:string-{Lang} datatype design, but if that seems
> inelegant to you....
>
> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 12:32 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > Now we are proposing to bury one of them inside a URI to get rid of
> > it. I would vastly prefer that we simply accepted that some literals
> > have more than one string, and adapt our notion of literal typing to
> > accommodate to that fact, rather than trying to disguise it or pretend
> > its not true, and so become obliged to swallow some clearly artificial
> > notion (such as a language tag being a kind of datatype) just to
> > preserve what is in any case a purely arbitrary model of literal
> > typing.
>
> In that vein, I think the *clean* thing to do with language tagged
> literals is to get them out of the fundamental model. RDF can model
> anything, so it can certainly model strings with language tags.
> Anything else is an optimization, I think, put in place for folks who
> think language tagged strings are so common they need special support.
> Then the question is what they really need (conceptual simplicity for
> humans, nice syntax, efficient machine processing, ...?), and what does
> the least damage to anything else....
>
> 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. :-)
Or
"foo" rdf:language "bar"
Oh, wait... :-)
Best,
y
>
> -- Sandro
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 14:28:51 UTC