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

Re: Comments on ioctl (was: Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13))

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 09:44:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3BC30D54.3020005@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:

[...]


> If I thought that 'literal' meant simply 'character string'. I 
> would agree with him (and I suspect, you), but I have never thought that 
> it did mean that.


In RDF 1.0, there are no integer literals, if that's what you mean.


Exactly what sort of literals there are isn't entirely clear,
but I suggest there are two:

  -- character string literals
   e.g. "abc" which is a sequence of 3 unicode characters
  -- XML content literals
   e.g. the value of <dc:title>a <em>very</em> big dog</dc:title>
   which is (something like) a sequence of infoset items,
   the first two of which are character items, next comes
   an element item whose name is "em", followed by 8 more
   character items.

> Maybe I was wrong, though, in this community; and if 
> so, then I should probably change the model theory, or at least the way 
> it is worded. However, if literals really are just character strings, 
> then I don't really see any coherent way of allowing a single bare 
> character string to have a number of different literal values.


Quite!

> If 
> "20001225" really could mean either a bit more than 20 million or Xmas 
> day, surely *something* has to be able to decide which one is meant, 
> when one comes across that string in a graph somewhere?



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 10:44:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:58 EDT