- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:53:08 -0800
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 02/27/2013 02:06 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Le 26/02/2013 21:08, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit : >> Is rdf:langString a datatype? It sure looks as if it should be, but it >> isn't. > > It is. There is lots of wording strongly suggesting otherwise. > >> >> The OWL WG finessed this issue a different way, that was consistent with >> datatypes. This could be done here as well (the datatype rdf:langString >> takes strings of the form "xxx@ll", ...), but maybe my proposed fix for >> the Semantics could be made visible in Concepts. > > We have debated this extensively and we reach an agreement. What you propose > was proposed then, was rejected then (personally, I was in favour of it). I'm not arguing (any more) for this solution, just a resolution on the status of rdf:langString that is carried through in the documents. I suppose that it could be an instance of rdfs:Datatype without being a datatype, but that seems a bit strange (although not semantically ill-formed). > > AZ > > peter
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 14:53:37 UTC