- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:42:50 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 08:30 AM 10/14/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >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. Yes... I think I came closer to that in the tentative text, which you did not quote. But mainly, I wanted to make sure we're all facing the same direction now ;-) #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 09:11:37 UTC