- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 21 Oct 2002 10:49:11 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 09:34, Brian McBride wrote: > > At 15:16 21/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > [...] > > >Motivations are: > >- uniform framework > >- addresses TBL's desire that XML is not built-in at the lowest level to RDF > >- provides argument why lang tags are part of literal > >- gives an example of a non-XSD type system that Brian is prepared to > >defend. > > I'm sorry, I'm maybe being contradictory on this. This proposal means that > either: > > 1) A datatyped literal denotes a value, in which case RDF datatypes map a > pair (lex, lang) to a value which is contrary to the xsd datatyping model > > 2) A datatype literal denotes a pair (val, lang) and then we have > (speaking loosely) French integers being different from English integers, i.e. > > <jenny> <age> "10"-"fr"-<http://...#decimal> . > <johnny> <age> "10"-"en"-<http://...#decimal> . > > does not entail > > <jenny> <age> _:l . > <johnny> <age> _:l . > > I really don't want to go anywhere near 2. I don't see why not. > No one wants to declare the existing Nokia data illegal, but I currently > see a choice between: > > o following the xsd datatyping model (except we play a little fast and > loose on the legacy) > o or blessing the current Nokia data > > I suggest that if we choose the latter, we are in for heavy last call > comments. The risk of 'hey, why did you do it that way?' comments seems higher, to me, if we choose 1. > I doubt that the schema datatypes decision that lang was not a > factor in the mapping was taken lightly. > > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 11:50:11 UTC