Re: Bermudan flowers: Query, I18N, and syntax vs semantics

On 2002-02-04 18:23, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
>>> We could allow arbitrary typed values as node labels. e.g. in the B10
>>> example the nodes are labelled with the number 10.5 and not
>> with the string
>>> "10.5" nor the string "10,5".
>> 
>> Unfortunately, Jeremy, such an approach cannot work in practice.
>> 
>> Otherwise all RDF parsers must support all arbitrary datatypes
>> and the RDF graph must provide a *lexical* representation
>> (albeit canonical) for all  values of all arbitrary datatypes?...
>> 
> 
> I was (perhaps not explicitly) expecting that the action for unknown
> datatypes would be to use the TDL pair (datatype uri + lexical string) as
> the (representation of the) value.

Fair enough. Though perhaps we could achieve the same or
similar results by mapping non-canonical lexical forms
for known datatypes to canonical forms and retain the
consistent TDL pairing representation.

Still, I think we're digressing (or regressing ;-) without
need.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:31:10 UTC