- 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