- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:32:59 -0700
- To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: > Garret Wilson wrote: > >> Although from reading the specs you might think that RDF allows you to >> create your own typed literal datatypes from scratch, in practice the >> only really useful typed literals are a subset of the XML Schema >> datatypes: strings, integers, booleans, and URIs--- >> > why? RDF calendar is an example of a very extensive usage of custom type > literals > That's interesting. I'll have to go check it out. Can you point me to the RDF Calendar spec you're reading? I just glanced at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/ , and the only custom datatype I could find was surrounding time zones---and the document mentions that this is an issue that is not resolved, using an experimental namespace. >> and you'll find that many people recommend using plain literals over >> xsd:string data-typed literals anyway, for various reasons. >> > curios to know those reasons. I use plain literals for natural language > text (e.g. a description), while using xsd:string for things like a > password (which doesn't have a language) > See the thread on the list with the subject, "what is a plain literal?" >> You'll even find some people who don't even to believe that >> from-scratch custom datatype literals can exist---or can only be >> created for a small group of things that they think are string-like. >> > where can I find them? On this list. Search the archives for "George W. Bush" and "literals". Garret
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 18:33:12 UTC