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

Re: Test cases for literal equality?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:42:13 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5783.1047566533@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Dan Connolly said:
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 05:32, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > 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.

yes, there are many things RDF or parts of it are not, but we don't
generally list them :)

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

I did go on:
> >  although the lexical form definition is compatible with it.

> > 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.

RDF plain literals have a language part, so are not equal to xsd:string.

The lexical form part of RDF typed literals is compatible with
but not equal to xsd:string.  

Both imply no need to run xsd:string tests

Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 09:44:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:13 EDT