Re: So now we have tidy literals...

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:30:15 +0100
• To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014082902.00aab738@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

At 16:49 11/10/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>Now that we have tidy literals, do we actually agree what (tidy) kind of 
>thing they actually denote, so we can say something sensible in the 
>concepts document?
>
>I.e., in:
>
>   Jenny age "10" .
>
>is there anything to say about what the "10" actually denotes?
>
> From past discussion, I'm expecting that the answer will be that a 
> literal denotes a composite value consisting of a Uniocode string, a 
> language code and an XML flag, or something of that kind.  That would 
> tally with the current abstract syntax description [1].

Right, though DanC has been suggesting we consider that we two types of 
literals, each a pair of the literal and the string, one is a bare literal 
and the other is an xml literal.

Brian

Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 03:27:48 UTC