- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:23:15 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 08/05/13 15:21, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 05/08/2013 10:12 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On May 7, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Andy Seaborne 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. >>> >> Blech. I strongly dislike having "kinds" of equality. Equality has one >> meaning, and it does not admit of degrees or kinds. This is a >> difference between literals and literal values, not two kinds of >> equality. We already draw out the distinction between literals and >> literal values. I don't see anything about testing values in concepts - I think it is useful in "concepts" to put literal equality and value testing close together. The important point, which continues to confuse people, is that "1"^^xs:integer "+1"^^xs:integer are different terms. How we express that, I don't mind. Text way down in a modified 5.5 isn't helpful where as something at the point of talking about literal equality is more reader-focused. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 15:23:46 UTC