- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:18:26 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:13 PM 12/13/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >I see yet another specification of literals in >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0053/00-rc#section-Graph-Literal > >That has the same problem. > >Here's a suggested replacement: > >6.5 RDF Literals > > To define a literal in an RDF graph, > let S be the set of Unicode > strings in Normal Form C, > L be the set of language identifiers [RFC3066], > and U be the set of RDF URI references. > > A plain literal is an element of the > union of S with SxL; i.e. it's either > a string or a string paired with a > language identifier. > > A typed literal is an element of the > union of SxU with SxUxL. > > Note that U and L are disjoint > (every member of U contains a colon; > no member of L contains a colon), > so SxL doesn't intersect SxU. Eh? Where's this about literal strings not containing colons come from? As far as I'm concerned, "a:b" is a perfectly good literal. >Then literal equality falls out from >the traditional definition of tuple >equality and string equality. > >I don't see what the NOTE about literals >being distinguisable from URI references >is supposed to mean; that's the same sort >of double-speak that's giving us trouble >in the XML Schema spec. It's meant to mean that: ex:subj ex:prop <http://example.org/abc> . and ex:subj ex:prop "http://example.org/abc" . are different graphs. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 05:55:43 UTC