W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: RDF's curious literals

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 00:46:42 +0200
Message-Id: <9BB28783-84CE-4047-8C22-5325DF9ABBA5@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>


On 1 Aug 2007, at 18:32, Garret Wilson wrote:
>   3. Even if we prefer to write 123 and "123", why do we need
>      rdfs:datatype when we can simply use rdf:type set to xsd:Integer?

Why do you keep railing against rdf:datatype? It is merely an  
artifact of the RDF/XML syntax. It does not exist in the RDF abstract  
syntax (which you call the “RDF model”).

And we wouldn't want anyone to mix up surface serialization syntax  
and abstract model in this thread, wouldn't we? ;-)

(Just kidding -- I think I understood the point you are trying to make.)

Cheers,
Richard


>
>
> Garret
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 22:47:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT