Re: varieties of datatyped tagged literals

On 07/09/11 17:42, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Following todays's discussion, let me rephrase the rationale of each
> "family" of solution:

Thanks. Pat gives teh details; this is good to discuss the general 
intent of each approach.

>
> 1. Don't change anything: literals will have *either* a datatype or a
> literal.
>
> In the following options, we unify literals by ensuring that every
> literal has a datatype.
>
> 2. The language tag is still "outside" the (lexical/value) mechanism of
> the datatype; the various sub-options differ in how this
> extra-information is introduced in the system.
>
> In the following options, we unify literals even more by making
> language-tagged literals a special case of datatyped literal.
>
> 3. The language tag is attached to the by the datatype.
>
> 4. The language tag is attached to the lexical form.

A RDF 1.0 literal has three parts:
    (lexical form, language tag, datatype)

with lang and datatype being optional.

Options 2, 3 and 4 remove the optionality on datatype.

Option 2 still has optional language tag; there is a single datatype for 
lang-tag literals.

Option 3 removes the lang slot and encodes it into the URI.
(or requires a dereference).

Option 4 removes the lang slot and encodes it into the lexcial form.

For 3 vs 4, if you emphasis datatypes more than lexical forms, you like 
3 and conversely, if you emphasis lexical forms, 3 is preferable to 4.

Options 3 and 4 reduce the dimensionality to 2 by encoding.

All options make language tags "special" in some way.  Option 2 does it 
bypassing L2V; options 3 and 4 rely on micro-parsing (further parsing a 
string).

 Andy

Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 18:31:18 UTC