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

RE: So now we have tidy literals...

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:39:00 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021015163001.08ea5af0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 12:20 15/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> > Test case:
> >
> >       <rdf:Description rdf:about="#something">
> >         <p1>abc</p1>
> >         <p2 rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">abc</p2>
> >       </rdf:Description>
> >
> > entails?
> >
> >       <rdf:Description rdf:about="#something">
> >         <p1 rdf:nodeID="X" />
> >         <p2 rdf:nodeID="X" />
> >       </rdf:Description>
> >
> > (please add that to the test collection, Jeremy/Jan/et. al.)
> >
>
>Answer: no it does not.
>
>It is a good question - and it demonstrates that langstrings and strings are
>distinct types.

Do they have to be.  It seems to me as though classic literals are behaving 
like 3 or 4 distrinct types:

  1 basic literal
  2 xml literal
  3 basic literal with lang
  4 xml literal with lang

I'm wondering whether 4 folds into 2 because of canonicalization; i.e. the 
lang really does become part of the literal string?

Could we rationalize by giving explicit types to the old style literals:

  1. a basic literal is of type xsd:string.
  2. an xml literal is of type rdf:xmlstring.
  3. a basic literal with a lang is of type rdf:langString
  4. ... if the answer to question above is no add rdf:xmlLangString

  <a> <b> "foo" .

is syntactic shorthand for

  <a> <b> xsd:string"foo" .

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:36:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT