W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:49:54 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 04:10 PM 1/16/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>At 18:41 15/01/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>I'm trying to answer a question that's come up in the CC/PP working group.
>>Can a plain literal be regarded as an instance of xsd:string?
>>I think it's fairly clear that a plain literal with a language tag is not 
>>an xsd:string,
>My recollection is that the WG discussed this at a telecon and agreed to 
>arrange things to that it would be possible that a plain literal without a 
>lang tag could denote a member of the value space of xsd:string, i.e. we 
>agreed that a plain literal with a lang tag did not denote a pair with a 
>null lang tag, but just denoted a string.

Thanks for remembering this.

I vaguely remember some discussion, but I did not recall a resolution.

>If this needs clarifying, I suggest we do so in last call, and as Patrick 
>says, as part of clarifying the class hierarchy of xsd datatypes.

I think it does need clarifying, and that doing so during last call is fine.

But, I think (given the way the MT is written) the abstract syntax needs to 
be clearer
about what a plain literal *is*, separately from clarifying the xsd 
datatype hierarchy.

(I think the xsd:string definition is quite clear about what it's values 
are;  I think we need to match that clarity -- see my original message [1], 
particularly the references)

I've added this to my issue list.


[1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0084.html

Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:48:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC