- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:10:23 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Ho, hum, this relates to a number of messages over the weekend (from DanC, Graham and Pat). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0238.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0243.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0253.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0255.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0256.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0262.html The WG has *not* decided whether or not plain literals without language tags are or are not xsd:string's. I believe that the plan is to resolve all problematic datatyping equivalences after last call, working with XML Schema WG. It would be stupid if xsd:anyURI was the same as an RDF plain literal, an xsd:string was the same as an RDF plain literal but that they were not the same. I don't believe the WG should be pushed into a premature decision on this topic. As the exchange between Graham and Dan has shown, the statement in the LCC concepts: [[ This set of blank nodes, the set of all RDF URI references and the set of all literals are pairwise disjoint. ]] is crucial, and currently there is no other text in concepts that contradicts that. Dan is proposing text that would contradict that, and hence his proposals on changing the literal definition must be rejected. Without this, it is impossible to tell the difference between triples I see this as completely orthogonal to whether or not the literal value denoted by a plain literal with no language component is or is not a string, and whether such a string is or is not an xsd:string which seems to be the heart of the issue. The quoted sentence is crucial because given a triple we need to known whether the subject is a bnode or a URIref, and whether the object is a literal, a bnode or a URIref. Hence concepts distinuishes syntactically between a plain literal with no language tag and a URI reference by being clear that the former is not just a string, but is a structure with named components. Without this, there would also be potential confusion between a typed literal with no language tag, and a plain literal with a language tag. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 06:51:35 UTC