- From: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 10:23:05 +0200
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: "public-rdfjs@w3.org" <public-rdfjs@w3.org>
Hi all, >> literals have other properties than value and >> .valueType would not cover this. > > I personally don't find this a problem. If we call it .valueType it's linked to the .value property. But literals also have a .language and .datatype properties. These properties would be out of scope. As is said, not a big issue, but not perfect. >> The >> RDF-Interfaces spec [3] uses that approach and rdf-ext implements it >> that way. > > These should not be arguments IMHO; > we are not following that spec on purpose, > and implementations can be changed. It's not about the spec, other people spent time to think about the problem and come to the same solution. The rdf-ext code must be changed for the TF spec anyway, but the solution is already in use and it works. As I mentioned already in the PR [1], I expect high level libraries will add other features to handle the term type. So the string length should not matter. Best, bergi [1] https://github.com/rdfjs/representation-task-force/pull/65
Received on Friday, 6 May 2016 08:25:44 UTC