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

Re: literal value terminology (was: Re: Review of MT)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:38:05 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020121093639.00aa53c0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I acknowledge that it may be clumsy, but I'd rather stick with "literal 
values".  I'm quite happy with "literal token".  I fear that whatever we 
define, the bare term "literal" will be sometimes misinterpreted.

[Later]

Alternatively, Pat's counter-proposal works for me.

#g
--

At 05:04 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>Speaking now :)
>
>I don't like the name "datatype values" particularly... I already made a
>suggestion long ago, but let me repeat it here again anyway. For
>orthogonality, I'd rename "literals" to "literal tokens/symbols/etc.",
>and make "literal values" just "literals". So you get
>
>I(resource URI) = resource
>I(literal token) = literal
>
>It just looks more consistent than
>
>I(resource URI) = resource
>I(literal) = literal value
>
>Of course, such change would involve a lot of find-&-replacing both in
>the draft and in our minds, but it does help to avoid confusions
>(Patrick's email is another example). If we leave it like it is now, I'm
>afraid we (well, you Pat) would have to clarify it over and over
>again...
>
>Sergey

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
        __
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:56 EDT