- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:38:05 +0000
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I acknowledge that it may be clumsy, but I'd rather stick with "literal
values". I'm quite happy with "literal token". I fear that whatever we
define, the bare term "literal" will be sometimes misinterpreted.
[Later]
Alternatively, Pat's counter-proposal works for me.
#g
--
At 05:04 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>Speaking now :)
>
>I don't like the name "datatype values" particularly... I already made a
>suggestion long ago, but let me repeat it here again anyway. For
>orthogonality, I'd rename "literals" to "literal tokens/symbols/etc.",
>and make "literal values" just "literals". So you get
>
>I(resource URI) = resource
>I(literal token) = literal
>
>It just looks more consistent than
>
>I(resource URI) = resource
>I(literal) = literal value
>
>Of course, such change would involve a lot of find-&-replacing both in
>the draft and in our minds, but it does help to avoid confusions
>(Patrick's email is another example). If we leave it like it is now, I'm
>afraid we (well, you Pat) would have to clarify it over and over
>again...
>
>Sergey
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:06 UTC