W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: notation for literals

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:53:33 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020424205301.03c6c1d0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I think DaveB was working on a syntax extension following the F2F...

#g
--

At 09:26 AM 4/24/02 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Is there an approved way to indicate the three parts of a literal in 
>Ntriples? Or should we just take the line that while literals are defined 
>to have three parts, we will proceed as though they were just strings, 
>really? I would prefer it if we had a notation which did in fact exactly 
>reflect our decisions, if only to be able to avoid having weasel-wording 
>in the spec. For example, right now the MT is obliged to say something 
>like this:
>
>"An RDF literal has three parts (a bit, a character string, and a language 
>tag [@@reference@@]), but we will treat them simply as character strings, 
>since the other parts of the literal play no role in the model theory."
>
>which is tacky, to say the least.
>
>BTW, what is the normative reference to go in there?
>
>Pat
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC                                    (850)434 8903   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola,  FL 32501                    (850)202 4440   fax
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 03:49:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:36 EDT