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

Re: RDF's curious literals

From: cr <_@whats-your.name>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:18:25 -0400
To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070802171825.GC1822@replic.net>

>  Even if we prefer to write 123 and "123", why do we need *the datatype of a 
>  typed literal in the RDF abstract syntax* when we can simply use rdf:type 
>  set to xsd:Integer?

why do we need rdf:Datatype or rdf:type for literals when we can simply not use them?

JSON for serialization - the types are implicit in the encoding - and native language types when in memory - i added typed-literals to an app this morning and theres certainly no visible type tags anywhere - theyre somewhere deep in the parsing and implementation layers of the tools used..



> 
>  Garret
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 17:18:36 GMT

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