- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:44:02 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: www-archive@w3.org
> PS: Note that this [1] can be used to defeat just about any scheme for special > syntactic processing of XML literals in RDF/XML. Jeremy's "Option 3" [2] does a purely syntactic treatment, including xml:lang, where XML Literals look like perfectly normal (string^^datatype) pairs by the time they get to N-Triples. That wouldn't get tripped up here, as far as I can tell. More deeply, do you have a simple explanation of why it doesn't work to have two kinds of datatypes -- language sensitive and language insensitive ones? I'm not sure the simplest way to arrange it, but maybe: - the lexical space of each datatype is either a set of Unicode strings (exclusive) OR a set of pairs of <Unicode string, language string>. (That is, the range of L is the union of the set of Unicode strings and the set of string/string pairs. The domain of L2V(xsd:int) is the set of Unicode strings like "0", "1", etc. The domain of L2V(rdf:XMLLiteral) is the set of pairs of Unicode strings like <"<a></a>", "en-US">, <"<b></b>, "en-US">, etc. or - the lexical space of each datatype is a pair (as above); for many datatypes the second item in the pair does not play a role in L2V(d); for all x,y,z: L2V(xsd:int)(x,y)=L2V(xsd:int)(x,z) These are certainly more complicated, and perhaps offensively so, but they hardly seem impossible or even impractical. I'm no expert in this kind of abstraction; am I missing something important? -- sandro [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Aug/0084 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 23:44:10 UTC