- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:34:56 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 30 May 2011, at 17:25, Pat Hayes wrote: >> 2. "foo" and corresponding forms in other concrete syntaxes are syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string. In general, both forms MAY be used and are equivalent. > > "Equivalent" has multiple meanings. In one of them, these forms are equivalent in RDF now. Better say, "represent identical literals in the abstract syntax" or some such phrasing. Good point, thanks. I updated the proposal accordingly: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain Richard
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 18:35:24 UTC