- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:09:49 +0200
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On May 24, 2011, at 11:39 , Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>> now swap the test and the situation is the same (RDF 1.0) and misses the language (RDF 1.1):
>>
>> if (typeof(lang_or_dt) == URI) {
>> /* it has a datatype */
>> } else if (typeof(lang_or_dt) == Literal) {
>> /* it has a language tag */
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, we might now end up with a new abstraction - the post-parse abstract graph.
>
> Well, if the "correct" concrete syntax is given to be the "foo"@en form, then pre-2011 RDF systems will continue as before, and post 2011 systems can choose to represent internally as a datatype, or as a lang tag.
>
> The difference would/could be in DATATYPE("foo"@en) in SPARQL.
>
> If people write "foo"^^lang:en, then there will be some issues with pre-2011 systems.
Let us try to avoid confusing ourselves (further:-). As far as I could see, the latest proposal did not adopt the datatypes for individual languages, ie, we are not talking about "foo"^^lang:en for now... Or am I mistaken and this is still on offer?
Cheers
Ivan
>
> The things I'm keen to avoid are e.g. in SPARQL Results, not having to emit:
>
> <binding><literal datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">foo</literal></binding>
>
> For each plain literal result.
>
> - Steve
>
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>
>
----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 10:07:47 UTC