- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:01:53 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A680ADC4-23DC-4C23-9609-03A078FBB997@3roundstones.com>
Hi Andy, Thanks. That's useful. I have add the definitions to the Literals section in Concepts and will push it if I ever figure out how to merge the heads :/ Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On May 7, 2013, at 05:13, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > RDF Concepts says: > > [[ > Literal equality: Two literals are equal if and only if the two lexical forms, the two datatype IRIs, and the two language tags (if any) compare equal, character by character. > ]] > > I think it would be useful to spell out "term equality" and "value equality" as important concepts. > > RDF Concepts already defines "RDF term". > > [[ > Literal term equality: Two literals are term-equals (the same RDF literal) if and only if the two lexical forms, the two datatype IRIs, and the two language tags (if any) compare equal, character by character. > ]] > > [[ > Literal value equality: Two literals that are associated with the same value as said to be value-equals. > > Two literals can be value-equals without being the same term. For example: > > "1"^^xs:integer > > "01"^^xs:integer > > are assciated with the same value, but are not the same literal RDF terms and are not term-equals. > ]] > > ("associated" is the work used in 5.5 currently) > > Andy >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 16:02:17 UTC