- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:02:45 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
I had a look at
2.4.3 Literals
2.4.4 Datatypes
4.2 RDF Literals
--
http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.html
and it looks good to me as well, but I'm still concerned that
"chat"@en^^my:dt
"chat"@fr^^my:dt
denote the same value
??? why not have that
"chat"@fr
*is* the lexical form
and of course for
"10"@de^^xsd:int
the mapping fails because the lexical form is not in the
lexical space of the datatype associated with the datatype URI
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Patrick Stickler"
<patrick.stickler@n To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
okia.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: rdfs:StringLiteral
w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ
est@w3.org
2002-10-27 03:22 PM
Please respond to
"Patrick Stickler"
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690,
patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 25 October, 2002 21:35
Subject: Re: rdfs:StringLiteral
> 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).
Looks good to me.
Patrick
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2002 10:03:28 UTC