Re: Test cases for literal equality?

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 05:32, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >>>Graham Klyne said:
> > 
> > Do we have any test cases for dealing with literal equality?
> > 
> > In particular, I'm wondering if the recent discussion of XML literals and 
> > canonicalization will have any effect of the interpretation of language 
> > tags for typed literals.  Currently, if I have the details right, typed 
> > literals with different language tags are distinct values in the abstract 
> > graph, but always denote the same thing, with the exception of XML 
> > literals.  Plain literals are language-tag sensitive.  What about xsd:string?
> 
> xsd:string is a datatype in the XSD specification and from what I
> recall, RDF doesn't use it - no RDF literal is an xsd:string

careful... no RDF literal is specified to be (i.e. denote)
an xsd:string; but neither is it specified to be
(i.e. denote) *not* an xsd:string.

RDF literals and xsd:strings are both sequences of unicode
characters, so it's straightforward to see them as
overlapping.

>  nor has
> one as a part, although the lexical form definition is compatible
> with it.  A quick grep in the concepts WD confirms this as far
> as I can tell.  So we don't need to test xsd:string comparisons.

No, but keep in mind that WebOnt does, and if they have questions
as a result, we might owe them answers.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/