W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Test cases for literal equality?

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
Message-id: <1047566231.24641.51.camel@dirk.dm93.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

>  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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC