- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:28:29 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 26 Sep 2011, at 09:50, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > - Syntactically, xxx@lll would simply be a shortcut for the abstract syntax "xxx@lll"^^rdf:LangString. No. In rdf:PlainLiteral, the "xxx@lll"^^rdf:PlainLiteral form is *forbidden* except in environments that don't support language tags. This restriction exists for very good reasons that I won't reiterate here. The "xxx@lll"^^rdf:LangString form would have to remain forbidden for the same reasons. > For instance, time zone, year, hour, date in xsd:datetimeStamp are obtained by parsing the lexical form. Same for exponent in xsd:float, same for any component of any typed literals. Why should it be different for lang tagged strings? 2.5 is a decimal number and that 2011-09-26 is a date. These things have been enshrined in a gazillion specifications and programming languages and libraries for decades. No programming language knows that "foo@en" is supposedly a string tagged as English. > In terms of pure specs, I think option 4 is much more elegant and easy. However, I understand that there are practical issues with option 4 You understate the issues. Every existing application that uses the Literal.getLexicalForm() call of some API to get at the xxx part of xxx@lll would have to be changed, because the lexical form of xxx@lll is now xxx@lll. That's a complete non-starter. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 09:28:58 UTC