- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:43:03 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Sandro, I could now point out how that code is more complicated than the equivalent option 2 code and consider your simplicity argument refuted. But it just strikes me as remarkable that you seriously put forward the potential saving of two lines of code in the *implementation* (not even interface) of *one class* as an argument for changing a W3C Recommendation. Also, your proposal seems to be motivated by a desire to reduce the total number of distinct parts in a literal from three to two. Why not go further and reduce them to one? Surely that would be superior to your proposal by your own metric? Also, "foo"@en and "foo"@EN and "foo"@eN are all the same literal in Turtle, SPARQL and N-Triples. Would "foo"^^rdfl:en, "foo"^^rdfl:EN and "foo"^^rdfl:eN be the same or different in your proposal? Also, this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0425.html Best, Richard On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:13, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 10:12 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> On 7 Sep 2011, at 19:34, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> I argued in todays meeting, off the cuff, that option 2 (in Pat's >>> email [1]) offers only aesthetic improvements, while options 3 and 4 >>> will result in simpler code. >> >> Please provide some example code for: >> >> Option 3: >> >> - checking whether a literal is a string > > LANG = "http://www.w3.org/ns/lang/" > XS = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > > def is_string(node): > return is_literal(node) and ( > node.datatype == XS+"string" or > node.datatype.startswith(LANG) ) > >> - returning the language tag of a language-tagged string > > def lang_tag(node): > assert node.datatype.startswith(LANG) > return node[len(LANG):] > >> Option 4: >> >> - returning the lexical form of a literal > > node.lexrep > > I agree this is a significant compatibility problem, since it will > return chat@fr. > > -- Sandro > >> Thanks, >> Richard >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 16:43:54 UTC