- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:03:49 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> [2011-05-24 16:46-0700] > On 5/24/2011 3:57 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >On 24 May 2011, at 20:32, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >>Q2C. Does this RDF graph (written in Turtle) have one, two or three triples? > >> > >><x-eg:a> <x-eg:c> "foo" . > >><x-eg:a> <x-eg:c> "foo"^^xsd:string . > >><x-eg:a> <x-eg:c> "foo"^^xsd:Name . > >Two triples in the graph -- "foo"^^xsd:string and "foo"^^xsd:Name. > > > >Both say the same thing under XSD-Entailment. > Yes > >Isn't xsd:string vs xsd:Name just like xsd:integer vs xsd:byte? Two different triples, no problem. > it may be odd if we effectively deprecate xsd:string for RDF > (surface syntax ...) but still have subtypes lying around ... I was modeling this as: deprecating plain literals in favor of xsd:strings. suggesting that languages spell xsd:strings like the old plain literals. so talking about xsd:strings as ranges or supertypes or whatever is all consistent. -- -ericP
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 02:04:19 UTC