- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:55:44 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 20:27 11/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > > My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change this. Do > > you have one Patrick? [...] >A literal is not a pair ("string", "lang"). The M&S is wrong. I was hoping for something a little more compelling than a bald assertion. [...] >So now, > > <key xml:lang="en">pan</key> > <key xml:lang="sp">pan</key> > >do we get > > xxx key "pan" . ("en") > xxx key "pan" . ("sp") > >or > > xxx key ("pan","en") . > xxx key ("pan","sp") . I do not understand the semantics of the difference between these two representations, so I can't answer that question. >Now which represents tidy literals? As above, I don't know. > And does >that mean that for *every* query that compares >literals one must specify language? That seems to be an issue of query language design and out of scope of this discussion. >And what about comparison of literals where one >is specified for language and the other is not, >do they match? No? I would expect that we would define things such that they don't match. >Why? Because the language is part of the literal, and the languages don't match. >Nope. I don't think that any of our discussions >over the past few months have considered literals >to be anything but the string. Not since you joined, perhaps, but it has been an open issue all that time. Brian
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 14:56:56 UTC