- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:11:41 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> [2011-05-18 09:01-0500] > I think the WG needs to take a single, binding decision on the following question, before we can settle the issue about string literals. > > Ignoring language tags for the moment, should a plain, untyped string used as a literal in RDF be considered to have the type xsd:string, or the type rdf:PlainLiteral, or some other type, or to not have a type at all? Compatibility with existing SPARQL leans me towards xsd:string . SPARQL stakes no claim about literals with a language tag so I'm inclined to use rdf:PlainLiteral for them. > Pat > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > -- -ericP
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 14:12:17 UTC