- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:43:53 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
agreed Jeremy
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hpl.hp.com> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ Subject: Re: rdfs:StringLiteral
est@w3.org
2002-10-25 09:35 PM
Pat:
> undatatyped literals were indeed un-datatyped
fine. I'll roll back,
> rdfs:XMLLiteral is a masterpiece
and Pat skilfully chooses an option that wasn't really meant to be on the
table - I am afraid that will be the most work for me, but it shouldn't be
too bad - but your flattery compensates for the additional work!
Thinking about it, it probably will read OK, possibly better, than either
of
the alternatives I had given.
I'll be down to one built-in datatype, which is clearly then a special
case.
It (alone) needs a lang tag in its interpretation, so that too is a special
and unique case that then is non-genralizable (which will please brian).
Having two sorts of literal typed and untyped is manageable (more
manageable
than three). And getting the XML stuff out of the abstract syntax into the
datatyping will hopefully please Tim and Massimo.
So the only thing that gets lost is the ability to use a lang tag in a user
defined datatype mapping - which I heard no one arguing for.
Frank - I assume your happy with this:
i.e. untyped literals back as they were
i.e. rdf:parseType="Literal" creates things of a new datatype - I assume
this
does not get into the primer (or maybe just a link).
Please holler if not.
Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 19:44:34 UTC