Re: notation for literals

Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >>>Brian McBride said:
> > At 09:26 24/04/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > >"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."
> >
> >
> > Where do we define literal equality?
> 
> Nowhere at present; we additionally don't define what a literal is,
> according to our decisiions.  The existing MT talks about string
> literals (since we postponed XML stuff till later) and uses string
> equality.  The answer is captured in the issues list from various minutes.


Thanks for the summary. Marvellous stuff, Dave, except...

> In terms of N-Triples
> 
>    "abc" equals "abc"
> 
>    "abc" does not equal "abc"

     "abc" does not equal "abcd" - surely - or I have totally lost the
plot :-)


-- 
Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Profium, Les Espaces de Sophia,
Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France
Tel. +33 (0)4.93.95.31.44 Fax. +33 (0)4.93.95.52.58
Mob. +33 (0)6.21.01.54.56 Internet: http://www.profium.com