I reworded slightly, as I don't want to require to add an own section to the spec. I will clarify this during the discussion: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/index.php?title=Rdf_text_LC_WG_comment&diff=740&oldid=723 Axel Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axel Polleres [mailto:axel.polleres@deri.org] >> Sent: 29 April 2009 15:39 >> To: Axel Polleres; Seaborne, Andy >> Cc: Bijan Parsia; 'RDF Data Access Working Group' >> Subject: Re: rdf:text review >> >> I put the draft comment on the wiki: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Rdf_text_LC_WG_comment >> > > I've reworked it to be more suitable as reply. Added: > > 1. Point out the RDF invariant of literals having lang tag or datatype but not both. > > 2. How literals are passed back out of an extension entailment regimes affects the literal accessors of LANG/DATATYPE/STR > > 3. A question about effective boolean values of rdf:text literals. > > Andy -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 16:32:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:56 UTC