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
• To: <phayes@ihmc.us>
• CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <20110518.110050.840230592981488584.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I'm not sure that "be considered to have" means here.

peter

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