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

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

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:10:08 +0000 (GMT)
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0201211009130.23499-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:

> 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.

It's ironic, isn't it, because I'm sure we all recognise that it doesn't
matter what you call them , as long as you have a clear definition of
what the term you're using means. I share Graham's worries about general
misinterpretation though.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
You see what happens when you have fun with a stranger in the Alps?
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 05:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC