- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:10:08 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. It's ironic, isn't it, because I'm sure we all recognise that it doesn't matter what you call them , as long as you have a clear definition of what the term you're using means. I share Graham's worries about general misinterpretation though. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk You see what happens when you have fun with a stranger in the Alps?
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 05:10:35 UTC