- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:02:00 +0200
- To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-11 21:55, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 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.
Umm.. the assertion was associated with a good bit of
explanation, both here and elsewhere.
>> 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.
Then we need to modify the representation of literal nodes
in the RDF graph to in fact be a pairing of string along
with (possibly unspecified) language.
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 Tuesday, 12 February 2002 04:00:39 UTC