- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:55:31 +0200
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> It would appear that folks are biting at the bit to discuss untyped
literal
> semantics. As this is a topic that arouses some passions, I'd like to
> suggest some guidelines for how we conduct it.
my understanding of "untyped" is "no type"
which is not the same as "unknown type"
> My first suggestion is that we use rdf/xml syntax throughout. The issue
is
> not really what:
>
> <a> <b> "foo" .
>
> means. As Pat has recently shown, we can create new constructions in
> n-triples more or less at will. That still leaves the question of what
does
> the following rdf/xml translate to in terms of n-triples.
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="jenny">
> <foo:age>10</foo:age>
> </rdf:Description>
I would say
:jenny foo:age "10" .
i.e. no type
whereas e.g.
<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="jenny">
<foo:age rdf:datatype="_:t">10</foo:age>
</rdf:Description>
would be
:jenny foo:age _:t"10" .
i.e. unknown type
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 08:56:11 UTC