- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:54:46 +0300
- To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Third, I suggest we are choosing between one of three options: > > o untyped literals are self denoting > o untyped literals denote a value from the value space of some datatype > o we can't decide I believe there is another disjunct decision that the WG should make, as suggested by Jeremy, which would insulate most of the documents which must deal with the concrete and abstract syntax from the above decision; and that is to make inline literals syntactically (not semantically) untidy in the abstract syntax (and NTriples), and assign to them a unique systemID such as used to name bnodes. Thus <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Jenny"> <age>10</age> </rdf:Description> would be represented in the abstract syntax as Jenny age (_:x, "10") . Adopting this form of syntactically untidy representation for non-typed literals will also facilitate developers who opt for untidy semantics, even if we opt to not decide ourselves on the semantics of non-typed literals. Note that making untyped literals syntactically untidy does not force any application from using an internally tidy representation in the interests of efficiency, etc. I would like to see this addressed by the WG before or in parallel to the separate and important issue of semantics and, if so adopted, reflected in the editorial changes being made to reflect Part 1 of the restructured datatyping specification in the various documents. Regards, Patrick
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 06:54:49 UTC