- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:59:21 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
[...]
> Thus, if
>
> Node a = Node.createLiteral("foo");
> Node b = Node.createLiteral("foo");
>
> actually resulted in the nodes having the internal labels of
> _:x"foo" and _:y"foo" then the existing implementation of
> the equals() method based on simple string-equality of labels
> would function as expected and conclude a != b as it should.
well, isn't that a "hidden" C or D?
and it is exactly how we (in euler) did our untidy literals experiment
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0347.html
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0355.html
so in that case we have a node, which is a pair
and the literal part of that pair is a string (which
can be interned to perform in an optimal way) and
the other half of the pair was a uri-dt (which could
actually maybe better be defaulted with the property
itself, and care could be taken for subproperties
as well), but it is all implicit and a hidden C or D
and the primitive bare literal is lost or we have all
turtles down the road (or something like that)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 12:01:03 UTC