W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Issue danc-02 Re: 2 formalities in RDF concepts

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:19:54 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <1043774393.29619.96.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 11:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Hi Dan
> thanks for your comment on goofy literals.
> Before the Working Group discusses this comment I wanted to check that you had 
> seen the line in that subsection:
> [[
> The lexical form is present in all RDF literals; the language identifier and 
> the datatype URI may be absent from an RDF literal.
> ]]
> and find that insufficient.

Ah, no, in fact, I didn't see that.

I suppose that's sufficient, but...

> I take it that the text you would prefer is:
> [[
> A literal in an RDF graph containing up to three components called:

I can't parse that. I don't really like the
	An _x_ contains _n_ components:
style anyway. Saying what something has doesn't define it.

I have 2 arms. But I am not my two arms.


	A literal is either a plain literal or a typed literal.

	A plain literal is either
	* a Unicode string in Normal Form C
	* a pair of such a string and a language tag

	A typed literal is a plain literal paired with
	a URI reference.

> + The lexical form being a Unicode [UNICODE] string in Normal Form C [NFC] 
> (required).
> + The language identifier as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase 
> (optional).
> + The datatype URI being an RDF URI reference (optional).
> A plain literal is one in which the datatype URI is absent.
> A typed literal is one in which the datatype URI is present.
> ]]
> Have I understood correctly, or could we just leave it as it is?
> Jeremy

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 12:20:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC