RE: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:53 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > 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?

Yeah... I can live with that even though the "two syntactic components"
irritates me (I know what you mean but it sounds more complicated than it
needs to be)... I don't want to bikeshed such an unimportant sentence. So,
just use the sentence above or simply drop it :-)


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 17:47:02 UTC