Added compound literals #23
Conversation
|
Looks good! Thanks @iherman |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the text as it is (except for the parenthesis about mixing langString and compount literals, but that is a detail).
However, it would seem clearer to include it in the "RDF based solutions" section. After all, it is purely RDF based. The current solutions in this section leverage.
@iherman if you agree, I can make the change.
index.html
Outdated
| </p> | ||
|
|
||
| <p> | ||
| (It would be possible to make a “mix” whereby, instead of using <code>rdf:language</code>, one would use a <code>rdf:langString</code> as an object for <code>rdf:value</code>.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yuk :-/ I am not sure I want to hint at that solution... IMO, it has the worse of both worlds: there is still an indirection to follow to "find" the actual string, without the benefit of cleanly separating its metadata in distinct triples... Worth, the metadata are heterogeneous in that respect.
I suggest we remove this parenthesis.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not saying I like it... :-)
I am fine removing it, but you can bet someone will raise this!
|
I am fine moving it to the RDF section. I would appreciate you do it:-) |
Done. Please have a look at the revise "General comments: Pros and cons" at the end of section 2.1 . I had to modify it slightly to account for the new RDF-based solution. |
|
I changed only one thing: by adding this solution to the lot, it may not be necessarily the case that a new WG is required to do this. Defining 3-4 extra terms may be done in another structure; e.g., I could imagine the I18N WG defining, formally, those terms. (Or may be even not requiring a WG but only a CG; to be discussed.) I have somewhat weakened the last sentence, and I will now merge it. Discussions with this group to follow... |
I picked up #22 and added to the document as yet another, possible solution; thanks to @afs
@afs can you look at this to see if it makes sense?
Preview | Diff