W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: basic question on string literals

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:00:50 -0400
Message-ID: <20110518.110050.840230592981488584.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I'm not sure that "be considered to have" means here.


PS:  "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: basic question on string literals
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:01:04 -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?
> Pat
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 15:03:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:06 UTC