- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:32:08 -0500
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Rephrase: What would we LIKE the answer to be? (SInce we, the WG, have the <eerie music>POWER</eerie music> to make it be the way we want it to be.) Pat On May 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 15:32:40 UTC