Re: my vote on the varieties of datatyped tagged literals

On 8 Sep 2011, at 16:42, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2011, at 16:40, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> Option 2 might be worse than Option 1; to put it simply, it seems to be
>>> making tagged literals be datatyped literals by making up a new,
>>> different, *non-XML-standard* sort of datatyped literal.
>> 
>> This is not true for 2c.
>> 
>> It is compatible with the XSD notion of datatypes. That was the whole point.
> 
> I'm giving you my skeptical look.  |-)  A datatype with an empty lexical
> space?   I see some discussion in XSD 1.1 about "ineffable" values,
> points in value spaces which have no lexical representation, but it
> seems like quite a stretch to define an XML Schema Datatype with a full,
> useful value space and an empty lexical space.

You claimed that it is non-standard. In what way is it non-standard?

> In terms of code: with this design, we need a different API for language
> tagged strings than for other data values, right?   We can't use .lexrep
> to get the lexical representation, since there is none.  

I don't know what you're talking about. I'll quote the design again:

[[
The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping.
]]

Why does this require a different API for language-tagged strings?

> For my example
> code snippets, your option 2c (which Ivan has labeled 2d) still looks
> just like option 1, I think.

Yes – it doesn't require any string munging, which is an advantage.

Best,
Richard



> 
>   - Sandro
> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 15:41:30 UTC