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

Re: 2001-09-07#5 - literal problem

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:39:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA0EF63.3CCACB66@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 02:39 PM 9/13/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >Questions for WG for tomorrow:
> >+ Does the WG agree that a Literal is a <Unicode String,RFC 3066> pair?
> A thought:  why not a <Unicode string,URI> pair?

That's my preference at this point.

>  RFC 3066 tags could be
> embedded in URI space using (say)
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-urn-01.txt.
> This would provide a mapping for xml:lang attributes, but would also leave
> a possible route forward for qualifying a literal with (say) XML schema
> datatype URIs.

I can confirm that all the XML Schema simple/scalar datatype
values can be represented as (unicode-string, uri) pairs
using URIs from the XML Schema datatypes spec.

The complex type values can, in theory, be represented that
way, but (a) the XML Schema WG hasn't provided the relevant
URIs, and (b) it looks like a hack/kludge to re-serialize
XML values this way.

> >+ Does the WG agree that Literal equality should be defined?

For primitive/scalar datatypes, yes.

For other stuff...

> I'm not sure about this.

nor am I.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 13:40:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC