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

Re: specifying literals

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:28:18 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021216090922.0451d070@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 08:39 PM 12/15/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Eh?  Where's this about literal strings not containing colons come from?
>
>I think you've confused S with L.

Yes, you're right.  My apologies.

> > 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.
>
>Those are different graphs because
>"http://example.org/abc" and
><http://example.org/abc> are different terms,

I thought that was what the text was trying to say.

Checks...
[[
Note: RDF Literals are distinct and distinguishable from RDF URI 
references; e.g. http://example.org as an RDF Literal (untyped, without a 
language identifier) is not equal to http://example.org as an RDF URI 
reference.
]]
-- 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0059/01-rc#section-Literal-Equality

>not because the URI http://example.org/abc
>is different from the string 'http://example.org/abc'.
>Hmm... I guess that means we can't let
>the URI and the string-literal be terms
>themselves... they do need to be sorta
>wrapped in something, syntactically...
>
>Maybe I'm barking up the wrong
>tree here... I need what the term
>"http://example.org/abc" to *denote*
>a unicode string, but I don't need
>the term itself to *be* a unicode string.
>
>But somewhere there's a semantic consition
>that literal terms denote themselves, no?
>
>I guess I'll have to think about it some more...

Hmmm, yes.  I guess we need to lose at least one of:

(a) URIs are nodes
(b) strings are nodes
(c) URIs are strings
(d) literal nodes denote themselves

I think you're saying that dropping (c) doesn't wash.  Not having thought 
this through, I'd been going with the idea that URIs are string-like things 
distinguishable from strings.  Which I now see is a bit like the XML 
datatype troubles you mentioned.

Hmmm...  <xsd:string,"string"> denotes "string" ?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 08:11:07 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:55 EDT