Re: typed literals and language tags - two proposals

Brian McBride wrote:

> At 13:39 08/05/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> These are for the Option 1 and Option 3, I will keep those names.
>>
>> Both options:
>>
>> PROPOSE reopen
>>   pfps-08 reagle-01 reagle-02
> 
> 
> This looks like a larger change than I had realised.
> 


The reopen these issues is essentially a formal device for indicating that 
in my opinion we should notify pfps, reagle, and the others of any changes 
to rdf:XMLLiteral that we make.
Option 2, which had no support on the list, makes no changes to XMLLiteral 
and hence would not require this.


> Can someone clearly state what advantage is gained from this.
> 
> Brian
> 


If we were to go with option 3 in particular, (but to a lesser extent 
option 1), we have made a change that allows us to be more positive about 
pfps-08 - that seems like an advantage.

Having the language tags on the xsd typed literals is decidedly odd - so 
option 2 seems like a no-brainer (that really is the small change of just 
syntactically omitting semantically irrelevant language tags for the types 
other than rdf:XMLLiteral) - we then have to decide whether we are happy to 
have rdf:XMLLiteral as both a syntactic and semantic anomolous datatype or 
fix it - either option 1 by not having it as a datatype or option 3  by not 
having anomolous.

I think either of those are advantageous. Maybe not sufficiently so.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 14:45:45 UTC