Re: RDF's curious literals

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2 Aug 2007, at 16:14, Garret Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1 Aug 2007, at 18:32, Garret Wilson wrote:
>>>>   3. Even if we prefer to write 123 and "123", why do we need
>>>>      rdfs:datatype when we can simply use rdf:type set to xsd:Integer?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep railing against rdf:datatype? It is merely an 
>>> artifact of the RDF/XML syntax. It does not exist in the RDF abstract 
>>> syntax (which you call the “RDF model”).
>>
>> What? If that were true, there would be no such things as typed 
>> literals in the model, because once you suck RDF/XML or N3 into the 
>> model and then re-serialize it, you'd just have plain literals again.
> 
> Garret, you say things like “why do we need rdf:datatype” and “death to 
> rdf:datatype”. rdf:datatype is an XML attribute in the RDF/XML sytnax. 
> Nothing else.

Richard, Garret has been railing against rdf**s**:datatype, not 
rdf:datatype. Of course, there is no such thing as rdfs:datatype, so 
I've assumed all along he means rdfs:Datatype, analogous to his other 
comments on rdfs:Literal. See http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatyp .

rdfs:Datatype is, of course, quite distinct from the RDF/XML datatype 
attribute.

Lee