- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:06:25 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:25 27/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] >>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. > >Well, Brian, surely you might have mentioned this before, I did. This has been extensively discussed before, including if, I recall correctly at the last face to face. It seems I should have reminded folks though. Apologies Pat. > when the datatyping discussion was in full progress, all predicated on > the assumption (and indeed the frequent explicit assertion, to which > nobody raised the slightest objection) that literals were strings. If > literals are not strings, then we have to go and do all that again, > because NONE of it makes any sense at all. What is the result of applying > the lexical-to-value mapping of xsd:number to the pair ("34", "french") ? > Is it the pair (34, "french" ) ? What would that mean ? I had assumed that the mapping would be applied just to the string part and ignore the language. >>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". > >Well, one problem for us is that we will have to re-open the datatyping >discussion again from square one. For example, if literals can be pairs, >then we could put the datatype name in the second slot of the pair, - a >solution which I believe was considered, but rejected on the grounds that >literals were NOT pairs, as I recall. I recall that suggestion being made. I don't recall it being explicitly rejected or the reasons for such rejection. I accept that I perhaps should have pointed out the relation to xml:lang. Brian
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 02:32:52 UTC