- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:58:21 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:15 27/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> >>>Patrick Stickler said:
[...]
>If that is what a literal is, why have we been using examples like "35"
>during the entire datatyping discussion? (Should these have been ("35",
>"Mathematics") ?) How does one define the application of a datatype
>mapping to a (string, lang) pair ???
When it was first proposed to extend n-triples to include the language tag,
the WG decided to hold off until we knew how datatyping worked before
making the decision. As I recall this was discussed at the last face to face.
>>My question was: does anyone have a compelling reason to change this. Do
>>you have one Patrick?
>>
>>> And especially since literals are
>>>> now tidy,
>>
>>The pair above is just as tidy as "string".
>
>I think the point was that literals *without lang* are tidy, which is my
>understanding of the current situation.
Just so. Is there a reason why literals with lang can't also be
tidy. They won't be tidy just on the string part. Is that the problem?
Brian
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 02:32:50 UTC