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

RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model - Review Copy

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:56:47 +0200
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200210260956.47437.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


As actioned yesterday I have prepared a new version of this WD for review by 
next Friday, when, hopefully, we will agree to publish.

The new copy is dated 26 October and can be found at:

http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.html

For those of you who have already studied the 25 October draft, the following 
version shows non-trivial differences.

http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts-marked-up.html

Please try and avoid confusing these two drafts.

There is an archive copy (CSS and imgs broken) at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0066.html

Substantive differences from yesterday are:
+ the datatype URI component of a literal is optional
+ the term typed literal and untyped literal are defined and used
+ the type rdfs:StringLiteral is deleted

Other differences are
+ the untyped literal is suggested as appropriate for "plain text in a natural 
language"
+ datatype mappings only use the string, not the langID
+ rdfs:XMLLiteral is an exception in that it uses the langID
+ no value is defined for untyped literals (section 4.2.2)
+ the lexical form is the string not a pair
+ literals are hence triples (except for untyped ones)

Jeremy

PS: I think these latest changes are an improvement, not merely an attempt to 
compromise with Pat. The notion of untyped literal is one that RDF users 
moving from M&S will know, and readers of the primer will use. So to have 
that explicit in the graph is probably appropriate.
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2002 03:58:43 EDT

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