- From: Michal Politowski <mpol@meep.pl>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 14:59:43 +0100
- To: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:16:02 +0000, Hugh Glaser wrote: > > > > On 23 Nov 2018, at 12:57, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > > > > Using a general way to make statements about literals sounds good to me. For geographical data I also see too many statements being squashed into a single literal. It is difficult to process and to store. > > Extensibilty could also be an issue. Why have a standard provision for indicating the language of a text string and not its pronunciation for example? How else can we tell the difference between the English nouns "shower" and "shower"? > > "shower" and "shower" and not English nouns - they are strings, and both the same. > If you want the English nouns, you should be using URIs for the nouns, which possibly have that string attached. > Similarly, strings don't usually have pronunciations - things associated with strings do. > (My three ha'p'orth, others' mileage may vary.) Ah, but if literals are 1 component things and a string is just a string, then what would one state by using RDF properties for eg. languages? If "shower" and "shower" are not English nouns but just strings, then they aren't English anything, are they? > > Op vr 23 nov. 2018 om 13:07 schreef Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>: > > Ah, good topic. > > > > So another thing I don't understand (:-)) is why we have to have language tags on strings at all, and indeed datatypes. > > (OK, it's because of XML heritage or something, I guess.) > > But we have a perfectly good way of representing knowledge about things. > > It is a real pain to create these 3 component literals and to query for different languages and datatypes in SPARQL. > > And worse still, if you want to query for strings that may or may not have language tags on, you need to do some real messing about. > > I often end up adding @en to all the strings, or removing region tags etc., just so I can do things more easily, which is surely a Bad Thing. > > > > Surely languages and datatypes should simply be RDF properties of Literals, which are 1 component things? > > Much easier to explain to developers, and for them to use. > > (If indeed they want to use raw RDF.) [...] -- Micha³ Politowski
Received on Friday, 23 November 2018 14:00:10 UTC