W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: 2001-09-07#5 Literals (use cases/test inputs, please?)

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:43:53 +0100
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF39B04A7D.EF4C162F-ON41256AEA.0075EC67@bayer-ag.com>

from todays telecon
  [14:53:58] gk
  Need a decision:
  [14:54:05] DanC
  yes, please, let's go this way! note that all XML Schema scalar values
  can be written (uri-for-primitive-type, unicode-char-seq)
  [14:54:57] JosD
  exactly DanC
  [14:55:00] gk
  Do we go the way of using blank nodes for literals, or do we regard
  literals as structured entities....(attempt)
  [14:55:07] DanC
  ... and that the XML Schema spec specifies a canonical lexicalization
  (unicode-character-string) for each value; so there's a well-defined
  mapping in both directions.
  [14:55:38] gk
  Literals as separarate animal in the model theory, or just another
  kind of resource node? (another attempt)
  [14:55:56] DanC
  please let string literals denote strings. hmm... what to do with xml:lang.
]] -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-19.html

and your
> I'm starting to think this is worth changing the charter over:
> if the xml:lang stuff is to be significant, it must be
> in triple form.

and Sergey's proposal S3
  (S3) use bNodes [M&S,TBL]

      Examples: John_Smith weight [units Pounds, rdf:value "10"], or
                John_Smith weight [pounds [decimal "10"]]
]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0343.html
[TBL] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html

I find that a very reasonable path to follow!

Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 16:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC