- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:48:02 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:02 12/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > >> 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. Chapeau at a rakish angle (i.e. part on, part off) Let me frame this discussion a little, and declare an interest. I have running, publicly available code with a user base. The code has evolved a lot over the past months, but I and the Jena team have worked hard to maintain its external interfaces so that the running code of our user base would not suddenly break. I read M&S and it said that language is part of the literal, so that is how I wrote the code. In Jena, a literal is a pair, as defined in M&S. The Jena team is committed to modifying Jena to track the decisions of the WG. Whatever decision the WG makes on this issue, we will implement. However, I would ask the WG, whether they feel that they would owe me, and other developers, an explanation for why, having gone to the trouble of implementing the spec correctly, we should be asked to change our code. To be clear Patrick, I have not seen anything in what you have written that comes close to an explanation of why this change would be a good thing. If there is something I have missed, then could I trouble you please to repeat it, or to provide a reference. I am entirely open to being persuaded by good reasons. However, I do not consider, "because Patrick says so" to be a good reason. A good reason might have the form "If we do it as m&s says, problem x occurs". [...] >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. That would be an implication of not changing from m&s's current position. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 04:49:42 UTC