- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 09:44:36 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > If I thought that 'literal' meant simply 'character string'. I > would agree with him (and I suspect, you), but I have never thought that > it did mean that. In RDF 1.0, there are no integer literals, if that's what you mean. Exactly what sort of literals there are isn't entirely clear, but I suggest there are two: -- character string literals e.g. "abc" which is a sequence of 3 unicode characters -- XML content literals e.g. the value of <dc:title>a <em>very</em> big dog</dc:title> which is (something like) a sequence of infoset items, the first two of which are character items, next comes an element item whose name is "em", followed by 8 more character items. > Maybe I was wrong, though, in this community; and if > so, then I should probably change the model theory, or at least the way > it is worded. However, if literals really are just character strings, > then I don't really see any coherent way of allowing a single bare > character string to have a number of different literal values. Quite! > If > "20001225" really could mean either a bit more than 20 million or Xmas > day, surely *something* has to be able to decide which one is meant, > when one comes across that string in a graph somewhere? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 10:44:45 UTC