- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:26:40 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > Typed literals should be opaque nodes with identity, like URI-refs. > Looking at parts of them for RDF interpretations is wrong. This > "ignoring the language in datatype interpretation except for > rdf:XMLLiteral" is seeming increasingly stupid. I've never quite understood why the lang tag was significant in the case of rdf:XMLLiteral. Is it legacy from M&S or what? Since the "wrapper" element is not normative and not really present (and somewhat of a hack IMO) how is the actual meaning of the literal affected by the lang tag ny differently than other types of literals? Can't we just treat all literals the same? > If it said: > [[ > <a> <b> XXX . > <c> <d> XXX . > > where XXX is any legal syntax for typed literal object node > > entails > > <a> <b> _:l . > <c> <d> _:l . > ]] I prefer this model of entailment, because it clearly bases the entailment on the denotation of the typed literal rather than its representation, which is just a means to an end; that end being the value, and once you have the value, the lexical form and datatype is irrelevant. > Then it would make more sense to me. Agreed. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 02:26:43 UTC