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

Re: goofy literals

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 05 Jun 2003 10:39:07 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1054827546.21350.1186.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 07:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Issuette:
> Should we change the term: "plain literal" to mean a literal of just a 
> lexical form, and then have a new term "language tagged literal"?

Either is acceptable to me; the difference is editorial; I'm
happy for the editor to take his pick.

I'm pleased to see the following substantive change; it's
responsive to my comment:


> To avoid copying any goofiness in the
> abstract syntax into the domain of discourse,
> we have hence changed the following rule in rdf-mt:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#gddenot
> From
> "if E is a plain literal then I(E) = E"
> to
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#gddenot
> "if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E) = aaa"
> "if E is a language tagged literal "aaa"@ttt then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>"

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 11:51:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:54 EDT