Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals

This is a very nice idea.
Brian can I have two minutes at the telecon to see what we do about it 
procedurally.

Jeremy


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> Subject: Re: pfps-08 last call comment on typed literals
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:42:12 -0600
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>>>I think that the best way to go would be to remove rdf:XMLLiteral
>>>entirely.  It is a bastard amalgam of syntax and semantics that provides
>>>far greater pain than benefit.
>>>
>>Yeh, well, the world isn't perfect. Whatareyagonnado?
>>
> 
> Complain!  Maybe even object.
> 
> 
>>>If, however, it is not possible to remove rdf:XMLLiteral, then why not
>>>separate its syntactic and semantic components?  Simply make it be the case
>>>that the processing of rdf:XMLLiteral in the RDF/XML does all the
>>>non-standard stuff in the translation to triples (much like rdf:nodeid
>>>does).
>>>
>>We have done except for the lang tag business.
>>
> 
> So finish the job!  :-)
> 
> 
>>>  So the translation of
>>>	<subject>
>>>	  <predicate parsetype="rdf:XMLLiteral">
>>>	    [some text]
>>>	  </predicate>
>>>	</subject>
>>>into a triple would be something like
>>>	subject predicate "[some other text]"^^rdf:XMLDocument .
>>>where [some other text] included all the junk involved with rdf:XMLLiteral,
>>>including the language tag stuff.
>>>
>>Jeremy is the one to ask. Jeremy, can we do this?? Note that this 
>>would then mean that we could GET RID OF LANG TAGS IN THE GRAPH 
>>ALTOGETHER. Just thought I'd mention it in passing.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>> This would allow rdf:XMLDocument to be a
>>>standard datatype.  You could even use rdf:XMLLiteral instead of
>>>rdf:XMLDocument if you really needed to, but I wouldn't recommend it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>peter
>>>
> 
> peter
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 01:31:55 UTC