- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 18:32:19 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> >The problem that I see is that there is still this datatype >(rdf:XMLLiteral) that doesn't act like a datatype. See below. > >If there was some different syntax for this purpose, then the situation >would be much better. For example, if literals in triples looked like > > "chat" > "chat"@fr > \\<xx></xx>\\ > \\<xx></xx>\\@fr > "15"^^xsd:integer > >then it would be obvious that string literals and XML literals are >different from typed literals. This would not require any change in >RDF/XML by the way. I take your point, and this is indeed one option we have considered. >I would find it still better if language tags were eliminated entirely. >This would allow completely uniform treatment of literals, with, perhaps, >untyped literals going back to being underspecified. That is another option we are actively considering. >Note that even this would not eliminate all the concerns I have with >rdf:XMLLiteral. Suppose (just suppose, mark you) that lang tags were eliminated altogether from the graph syntax, even from XML literals, and rdf:XMLLiteral were a built-in datatype with a lexical-to-value map which simply applies an XML canonicalization to the literal string. Might that overcome your concerns, if it were done in a suitable way? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 19:32:27 UTC