W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:10:41 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020713105259.027f3100@15.144.25.13>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 15:20 12/07/2002 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> >
> >    <Jenny> <age>          _:a .
> >    _:a     <xsdr:decimal> "10" .
>
>What does the object of the second triple above have to do with the
>two-character string '10'?  I don't see any reason that literals are
>strings.  In fact, I believe that in RDF they are *not* strings.

Please try to be helpful Peter.  You clearly understand what the current 
specs define a literal to be.  How is the distinction significant?

[...]


> > These test cases only relates to the situation where there are no range
> > constraints on the properties.
>
>This deserves to be put in large, bold, red flashing type at the top of the
>message.

Yes.  I'll send a separate post to emphasise that point.

>Further, what does ``the same'' mean?  Is it some semantic notion?

Yes.  The denotations are "the same".

[...]


> >    tidy) the <ageInYears> property takes a value which is a numeral, 
> i.e. a
> > string
>
>As I understand it, tidy RDF literals are not even strings, but instead are
>structured data.

That is the current status, though there is still some discussion on this 
point.  Is the distinction significant.

Brian
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 06:12:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT