- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:39:00 +0100
- 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 UTC