- 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
>>>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 UTC