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

Re: So now we have tidy literals...

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:42:50 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021014134106.033e1d20@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 08:30 AM 10/14/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>At 16:49 11/10/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>>Now that we have tidy literals, do we actually agree what (tidy) kind of 
>>thing they actually denote, so we can say something sensible in the 
>>concepts document?
>>
>>I.e., in:
>>
>>   Jenny age "10" .
>>
>>is there anything to say about what the "10" actually denotes?
>>
>> From past discussion, I'm expecting that the answer will be that a 
>> literal denotes a composite value consisting of a Uniocode string, a 
>> language code and an XML flag, or something of that kind.  That would 
>> tally with the current abstract syntax description [1].
>
>Right, though DanC has been suggesting we consider that we two types of 
>literals, each a pair of the literal and the string, one is a bare literal 
>and the other is an xml literal.

Yes... I think I came closer to that in the tentative text, which you did 
not quote.  But mainly, I wanted to make sure we're all facing the same 
direction now ;-)

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 09:11:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:25 EDT