- 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