- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:30:02 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: 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. > My current problem is that in some extensions of RDF there *are* things like integer literals, though, so I want the RDF model theory not to actually break when those kinds of things are added to it. If we incorporate very strong assumptions about what RDF literals must be, extensions will have a lot of trouble. It would be better if we could at least provide a kind of escape hatch for extended languages to use richer collections of literals. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 15:30:04 UTC