W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Literals: lexical spaces and value spaces

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:49:16 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043162170E@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 07 November, 2001 19:42
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Literals: lexical spaces and value spaces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> > 
> > The reason why a range definition cannot be descriptive
> > of non-locally typed literals, is because lexical form
> > is specific to a given data type, and the binding of
> > a value to a given property may occur by various means
> > and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical
> > form that is not compatible with the data type of the
> > property.
> 
> 
> Please can we have at least one concrete example, analysed 
> for each of the three 
> proposals S, P, X.
> 
> Brian

Perhaps I'm not understanding the S and P proposals, but
I don't see how any examples can be created that are
relevant to any of the proposals, as the S P and X
proposals are about attaching type to literals, right?

What I'm talking about is when there is *no* type attached
locally to the literal. It's just the literal. 

What am I missing here?

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 12:49:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:33 EDT