Re: For RDF Concepts: term-equality and value-equality.

On May 7, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> RDF Concepts says:
> 
> [[
> Literal equality: Two literals are equal if and only if the two lexical forms, the two datatype IRIs, and the two language tags (if any) compare equal, character by character.
> ]]
> 
> I think it would be useful to spell out "term equality" and "value equality" as important concepts.
> 

Blech. I strongly dislike having "kinds" of equality. Equality has one meaning, and it does not admit of degrees or kinds. This is a difference between literals and literal values, not two kinds of equality. We already draw out the distinction between literals and literal values. 

> RDF Concepts already defines "RDF term".
> 
> [[
> Literal term equality: Two literals are term-equals (the same RDF literal) if and only if the two lexical forms, the two datatype IRIs, and the two language tags (if any) compare equal, character by character.
> ]]
> 
> [[
> Literal value equality: Two literals that are associated with the same value as said to be value-equals.
> 
> Two literals can be value-equals without being the same term.  For example:
> 
> "1"^^xs:integer
> 
> "01"^^xs:integer
> 
> are assciated with the same value, but are not the same literal RDF terms and are not term-equals.
> ]]
> 
> ("associated" is the work used in 5.5 currently)

Why not say "refer to" or "denotes", both of which are used throughout the spec? Why introduce another terminology?

Pat

> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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, 8 May 2013 14:12:55 UTC