- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:49:54 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 04:10 PM 1/16/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >At 18:41 15/01/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>I'm trying to answer a question that's come up in the CC/PP working group. >> >>Can a plain literal be regarded as an instance of xsd:string? >> >>I think it's fairly clear that a plain literal with a language tag is not >>an xsd:string, > >Yes > >My recollection is that the WG discussed this at a telecon and agreed to >arrange things to that it would be possible that a plain literal without a >lang tag could denote a member of the value space of xsd:string, i.e. we >agreed that a plain literal with a lang tag did not denote a pair with a >null lang tag, but just denoted a string. Thanks for remembering this. I vaguely remember some discussion, but I did not recall a resolution. >If this needs clarifying, I suggest we do so in last call, and as Patrick >says, as part of clarifying the class hierarchy of xsd datatypes. I think it does need clarifying, and that doing so during last call is fine. But, I think (given the way the MT is written) the abstract syntax needs to be clearer about what a plain literal *is*, separately from clarifying the xsd datatype hierarchy. (I think the xsd:string definition is quite clear about what it's values are; I think we need to match that clarity -- see my original message [1], particularly the references) I've added this to my issue list. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0084.html ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:48:14 UTC