W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: basic question on string literals

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:32:08 -0500
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <300FA48F-7FA9-4976-98C7-44798F4D9964@ihmc.us>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Rephrase: What would we LIKE the answer to be? (SInce we, the WG, have the <eerie music>POWER</eerie music> to make it be the way we want it to be.)

Pat

On May 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I'm not sure that "be considered to have" means here.
> 
> peter
> 
> PS:  "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
> 
> 
> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
> Subject: basic question on string literals
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:01:04 -0500
> 
>> I think the WG needs to take a single, binding decision on the following
>> question, before we can settle the issue about string literals.
>> 
>> Ignoring language tags for the moment, should a plain, untyped string
>> used as a literal in RDF be considered to have the type xsd:string, or
>> the type rdf:PlainLiteral, or some other type, or to not have a type at
>> all?
>> 
>> Pat
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 15:32:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT