- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:23:15 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 26 Sep 2011, at 22:39, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> On 26/09/11 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Perhaps the best way to resolve this interminable debate would be to
>> start from the other end. Rather than implementors pointing out the
>> horribleness of various proposals, could we have a list of what
>> implementors would consider to be the least objectionable behavior? I
>> myself have no idea why "xxx@lll" is so very much worse than "xxx"
>> paired with the datatype langbase:tag, but I am quite willing to be
>> told that there is a consensus among implementors that this is so (or
>> whatever in fact is the consensus) and then I am sure I can design an
>> RDF modification which will realize that desired behavior and have a
>> reasonably coherent semantics.
>
> I believe it is "users" not "implementers" who should be the best guide and note that it's both code and data that might change but not at the same time.
+1
> "user" here is one or both of:
>
> 1/ data publishers
> 2/ application writers
>
> Consider:
>
> <foo> skos:prefLabel "bar"@en .
> or
> <foo> rdfs:label "bar"@en .
>
> Current systems would output "bar" when looking for the English label.
Right, I don't care about the difference between the lexical value, the L2V mapping, or whatever other degrees of freedom there are as long as the end result is rational, and not so different from what we have now that it confuses or annoys people.
It would be nice if DATATYPE("foo"@en) returned something helpful, but it appears to be difficult.
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 23:23:56 UTC