- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:23:08 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...]
> I was pretty careful to be sure the way we resolved
> the lang issue doesn't matter to the model theory.
I wouldn't have expected anything else from you ;-)
> To the model theory, a literal is still just a string. We can
> encode two strings in one, after all, no? Here's the
> n-triples design DaveB and I kicked around after the meeting:
>
> ("abc", 'en') -> "abc"-en
> ("abc", none) -> "abc"
> ("abc", 'fr') -> "abc"-fr
2ed
> Also, for XML literals, we'll have xml("canonical-form...", "en").
then, we could also write
:Mary :age xml(<int xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">45</int>,) .
or some such (in canonical form, which I forgot)
> The point is: the literal is syntactically evident in the RDF document.
true
--
Jos
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 13:23:50 UTC