Re: Alternative representation of typed literal nodes in NTriples (and N3)

Dave Beckett wrote:

>>>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:
>>>>
>>
>>Oops. My bad. If untyped literals are untidy, I guess we need some
>>distinct names for them ...
>>
> 
> Well, no actually.
> 
> If literals are untidy and only in the object position, then you
> don't need to give them ids in N-Triples.  If at some point literals
> were allowed in the subject position, then you will have to give them
> ids.  We haven't made that decision yet, and N-Triples only needs to
> change when that happens, not before.
> 
> And delete the qnames.
> 
> I thought the group already agreed that a document convention of
> using 'xsd:decimal', 'rdf:type' and so on for the appropriate URI is
> OK.  It happens the primer and MT use that in N-Triples, the syntax
> WD doesn't.


We did, but I think we refer to them as "triples" (or some other generic 
reference), not "N-triples", since we didn't want to go to the trouble 
of changing the "N-triples" definition.

 
--Frank


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875