- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:37:11 -0600
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 05:32, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>Graham Klyne said: > > > > Do we have any test cases for dealing with literal equality? > > > > In particular, I'm wondering if the recent discussion of XML literals and > > canonicalization will have any effect of the interpretation of language > > tags for typed literals. Currently, if I have the details right, typed > > literals with different language tags are distinct values in the abstract > > graph, but always denote the same thing, with the exception of XML > > literals. Plain literals are language-tag sensitive. What about xsd:string? > > xsd:string is a datatype in the XSD specification and from what I > recall, RDF doesn't use it - no RDF literal is an xsd:string careful... no RDF literal is specified to be (i.e. denote) an xsd:string; but neither is it specified to be (i.e. denote) *not* an xsd:string. RDF literals and xsd:strings are both sequences of unicode characters, so it's straightforward to see them as overlapping. > nor has > one as a part, although the lexical form definition is compatible > with it. A quick grep in the concepts WD confirms this as far > as I can tell. So we don't need to test xsd:string comparisons. No, but keep in mind that WebOnt does, and if they have questions as a result, we might owe them answers. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 09:36:12 UTC