- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 23:45:41 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2011-05-07, at 14:19, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 07/05/11 05:39, Pat Hayes wrote: ... >> We can say this all we want, but saying it does not make it true. >> Right now, it is false. Those are two triples. If you want this to be >> one triple, you need to explain how to rewrite RDF Concepts to make >> it come out that way. Good luck. >> >> Pat >> >>> Telling the world that "abc"^^xsd:string is a deprecated form of >>> "abc" (and systems are encouraged to normalize) is probably the >>> best balance between simplification and disruption. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Pat > > To clarify my example: > > That's not a graph - it's a serialization. My question is what graph does it produce when parsed given the proposed text. > > If it were: > > :x :p "foo" . > :x :p "foo" . > > then it produces a graph with one triple. > > :x :p "foo" . > :x :p "foo"^^xsd:string . > > Is the effect of "and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to plain literals without language tag" supposed to cause one or two triples? My recollection / understanding from the F2F was that the above serialisation would result in a graph with one triple. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 22:46:11 UTC