equating simple literal and xsd:string

Exploring the consequences of
  "asdf" = "asdf"^^xsd:string

UNIFY:
We could be ambitious and say, for SPARQL's purposes, they are the
same term. At that point, we need to define answers to:

  № test     current interpretation
  1. "asdf" < "asdf"^^xsd:string type error  ???
  2. DATATYPE("asdf")   type error  xsd:string
  3. DATATYPE(STR(<asdf>))  type error  xsd:string
  4. LANG("asdf"^^xsd:string)  ""   ???
  5. xsd:string("asdf")   "asdf"^^xsd:string "asdf"

№ 1 comes up when ordering ("Alice", "Alice"^^xsd:string) .


OVERLOAD =:
Another approach is to define a couple more = operators:
  simple literal = xsd:string
  xsd:string = simple literal

This seems a lot shorter to me, though skirts around the big issue of
whether DAWG should tell the world that THEY ARE THE SAME.


Andy, Steve, your implementations were cited as proof that the world
already does it this way. Do your implementations conflate the two
terms? My guess is that Steve's does, and Andy's does something more
like test positive for
  sameTermAs("asdf", "asdf"^^xsd:string)

DanC, which are you advocating, and do you have specific textual
changes that we can evaluate?
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.