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

Re: rdfs:StringLiteral

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:35:37 +0200
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200210252135.37638.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



Pat:
> undatatyped literals were indeed un-datatyped

fine. I'll roll back,

> rdfs:XMLLiteral is a masterpiece

and Pat skilfully chooses an option that wasn't really meant to be on the 
table - I am afraid that will be the most work for me, but it shouldn't be 
too bad - but your flattery compensates for the additional work!

Thinking about it, it probably will read OK, possibly better, than either of 
the alternatives I had given.

I'll be down to one built-in datatype, which is clearly then a special case.
It (alone) needs a lang tag in its interpretation, so that too is a special 
and unique case that then is non-genralizable (which will please brian).

Having two sorts of literal typed and untyped is manageable (more manageable 
than three). And getting the XML stuff out of the abstract syntax into the 
datatyping will hopefully please Tim and Massimo.

So the only thing that gets lost is the ability to use a lang tag in a user 
defined datatype mapping - which I heard no one arguing for.

Frank - I assume your happy with this:

i.e. untyped literals back as they were
i.e. rdf:parseType="Literal" creates things of a new datatype - I assume this 
does not get into the primer (or maybe just a link).

Please holler if not.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 15:37:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:31 EDT