- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:52:43 -0800
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > On Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:11 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 1:35 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >>>> Two paragraphs later, add a [[sentence]] to the end of the >>>> paragraph: >>> >>> The previous paragraph begins with >>> >>> "In summary: RDF literals are either language-tagged strings, >>> or datatyped literals" >>> >>> which is inaccurate IMO. We discussed this before when I wanted to >>> introduce a term for literals that are not langStrings. Here it bites >>> ourselves. Language-tagged strings are datatyped literals >> >> Weelll not *strictly* they aren't, because *strictly* rdf:langString is >> not a legal datatype. This is why I have to call it out as an exception >> in the semantics and give it its own special semantic condition, sigh. > > Hmm... yeah, if you look at it that strictly :-) What a mess for such a > simple feature... Tell me about it. > This is completely off-topic and I'm asking it just out of curiosity: What > would break if we would have decided to define a datatype for each language. > So instead of rdf:langString we would have had something like rdf:lang-xxx > similar to the container membership properties rdf:_xx: > > <> rdfs:comment "An explanation in English"^^rdf:lang-en Andy explained this. > > >>> , consequently the OR in this >>> sentence is, strictly speaking, wrong. The simplest way out is >> probably to just remove the whole sentence. >> >> But I will just omit the "datatyped", and then the contrast is between >> langString and the other cases which combine a datatype IRI with (just) >> one string. OK? > > Not sure I follow. Do you want to change that sentence to > > "In summary: RDF literals are either language-tagged strings, > or literals" > > That doesn't make much sense to me. Its better if you quote it in full, but let me try again. HOw about this: In summary: with one exception, RDF literals combine a string and an IRI <a>identify</a>ing a datatype. The exception is language-tagged strings, which have two syntactic components, a string and a language tag, and are assigned the type <code>rdf:langString</code>. Does that read better? Pat > > >>>> the datatype it refers to must be specified unambiguously, and must >>>> be fixed during all RDF transformations or manipulations. [[In >>>> practice, this can be achieved by the IRI linking to an external >>>> of specification the datatype which describes both the components >>>> of the datatype itself and the fact that IRI identifies the datatype, >>>> thereby fixing a value of the <a>datatype map</a> of this IRI.]] >>> >>> I don't think we need to add this sentence as we provide no mechanism >>> to do so in a machine-processable way anyway. >> >> True, but it was intended to be another piece of intuitive glue >> attaching "datatype map" firmly to "identifies", which was the real >> point of the changes. Unless you object to its content I would prefer >> to keep it. > > I can live with it if you think it's necessary. > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 16:53:21 UTC