- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:49:16 +0200
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 07 November, 2001 19:42 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Literals: lexical spaces and value spaces > > > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > The reason why a range definition cannot be descriptive > > of non-locally typed literals, is because lexical form > > is specific to a given data type, and the binding of > > a value to a given property may occur by various means > > and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical > > form that is not compatible with the data type of the > > property. > > > Please can we have at least one concrete example, analysed > for each of the three > proposals S, P, X. > > Brian Perhaps I'm not understanding the S and P proposals, but I don't see how any examples can be created that are relevant to any of the proposals, as the S P and X proposals are about attaching type to literals, right? What I'm talking about is when there is *no* type attached locally to the literal. It's just the literal. What am I missing here? Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 12:49:09 UTC