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

Re: Untyped Literal Semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:55:31 +0200
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF63357542.2A3E26ED-ONC1256C2F.00455E46@agfa.be>

> It would appear that folks are biting at the bit to discuss untyped 
literal
> semantics.  As this is a topic that arouses some passions, I'd like to
> suggest some guidelines for how we conduct it.

my understanding of "untyped" is "no type"
which is not the same as "unknown type"

> My first suggestion is that we use rdf/xml syntax throughout.  The issue 
is
> not really what:
>
>    <a> <b> "foo" .
>
> means.  As Pat has recently shown, we can create new constructions in
> n-triples more or less at will. That still leaves the question of what 
does
> the following rdf/xml translate to in terms of n-triples.
>
>    <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="jenny">
>      <foo:age>10</foo:age>
>    </rdf:Description>

I would say

  :jenny foo:age "10" .

i.e. no type

whereas e.g.

   <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="jenny">
     <foo:age rdf:datatype="_:t">10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>

would be

  :jenny foo:age _:t"10" .

i.e. unknown type

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 08:56:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:57 EDT