- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:41:53 +0300
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 04 September, 2002 13:26 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); jjc@hpl.hp.com; > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Datatyping: moving away from "literal as 3-part thing" to > "literal as dt+opaque bit" > > > > At 13:09 04/09/2002 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > I think the question might be: > > > > > > Should the abstract syntax of a datatyped literal have > an xml:lang > > > component? > > > >I did not know this was an open issue. > > Then please could you clarify the issue you are discussing in > this thread. My understand (which may be incorrect) is that the issue is whether or not only a single component of the literal structure (3-tuple) can be relevant to datatyping, or whether all of the literal must be relevant to datatyping. I.e. are all of the following literals identical insofar as the datatyping machinery is concerned: xsd:integer"10" xsd:integer"10"-en xsd:integer"10"-fi The present datatyping specification says that they are. Namely, that only the lexical form component "10" is meaningful to the datatyping interpretation and thus, even though the above typed literal nodes have string unequal labels (reflecting the entire structure of the literal) they all denote the same thing, the same datatype value. I am getting the impression that some folks are not happy with that. That somehow, the above three literals should mean different things? Or the fact that they mean the same thing yet have different node labels is confusing? I'm also getting the impression that some folks would not like to see the xml:lang code there, but that's a different issue, as I understand its presence reflects WG concensus about the structure, and N-Triples representation of literals. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 06:41:57 UTC