W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Typed literals: current status

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:34:45 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 15:16 21/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Motivations are:
>- uniform framework
>- addresses TBL's desire that XML is not built-in at the lowest level to RDF
>- provides argument why lang tags are part of literal
>- gives an example of a non-XSD type system that Brian is prepared to

I'm sorry, I'm maybe being contradictory on this. This proposal means that 

  1) A datatyped literal denotes a value, in which case RDF datatypes map a 
pair (lex, lang) to a value which is contrary to the xsd datatyping model

  2) A datatype literal denotes a pair (val, lang) and then we have 
(speaking loosely) French integers being different from English integers, i.e.

   <jenny>  <age> "10"-"fr"-<http://...#decimal> .
   <johnny> <age> "10"-"en"-<http://...#decimal> .

does not entail

   <jenny>  <age> _:l .
   <johnny> <age> _:l .

I really don't want to go anywhere near 2.

No one wants to declare the existing Nokia data illegal, but I currently 
see a choice between:

  o following the xsd datatyping model (except we play a little fast and 
loose on the legacy)
  o or blessing the current Nokia data

I suggest that if we choose the latter, we are in for heavy last call 
comments.  I doubt that the schema datatypes decision that lang was not a 
factor in the mapping was taken lightly.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 10:32:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC