- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:02:30 +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>
On 8 Sep 2011, at 22:46, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> So, that's what I mean by non-standard. I mean, this doesn't look like
> an XML datatype that people familiar with XML datatypes would consider a
> proper XML datatype.
You mean just like owl:Real?
Best,
Richard
>
>>> 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?
>
> I just can't get my head around the idea that a value like <"chat",
> "fr"> would have a lexical representation ("chat") but that it wouldn't
> be in the lexical space.
>
> Also, it seems like a problem that the pair of lexical representation
> and datatype does not convey all the information.
>
> I'm totally willing to accept that there might be some elegant solution
> in here; I just can't see it.
>
> -- Sandro
>
>>> 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 Friday, 9 September 2011 05:03:02 UTC