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

Re: rdfs:StringLiteral

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:43:53 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7E11C3A6.C0051431-ONC1256C5D.00824069-C1256C5D.00825E93@agfa.be>


agreed Jeremy

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                        
                    Jeremy Carroll                                                                                      
                    <jjc@hpl.hp.com>          To:     w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org                                             
                    Sent by:                  cc:                                                                       
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ       Subject:     Re: rdfs:StringLiteral                                       
                    est@w3.org                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-10-25 09:35 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        







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 19:44:34 EDT

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