- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:17:17 -0400
- To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Thanks for working with me on this. Let me try once again: <interpretation> Because [syntactic] RDF plain literals are already a part of RDF and SPARQL syntaxes [e.g. RDF/XML], rdf:PlainLiteral literal [values] are written [by those who don't know about rdf:PlainLiteral syntax, because they don't know about it, and by those who do, because they are aware of this spec] as [syntactic] RDF plain literals in RDF and SPARQL syntaxes [except when they're written using some other syntax, such as xs:string]. [RDF graphs will usually not contain typed literal nodes with datatype RDF:PlainLiteral simply because the corresponding surface syntax won't be used.] </interpretation> Does that do it? I'm not proposing to include the bracketed parts, but I would like an interpretation of this sentence that you and I agree on captured in the email archive. Best Jonathan
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 12:17:56 UTC