- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:30:37 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Greetings. >> >> Y'all are going to just LOVE me for this, > >Lot's and lots. > >(While I personally like that design - it is the wrong time for this >proposal). I didnt PROPOSE it. >Hence I will pick holes: > > > > > >> aaa ppp "sss"@ttt . >> -->> >> aaa ppp _:x . >> _:x xsd:string "sss" . >> _:x rdf:langTag "ttt" . >> >> Note that xsd:string is the appropriate datatype for simple literals, >> providing a way to in effect put a simple literal string in the >> subject position (encoded as a bnode). In fact, in this design, >> xsd:string is in effect owl:sameAs applied to literals. > >No that last bit is incorrect - the blank node _:x has language ttt whereas >the string sss does not. Right, as Graham also noted, so ignore that remark. > >The additional blank node was at the heart of the untidy proposals (either >explicitly or implicitly) and this proposal is essentially untidiness >revisited. Well, the graph is tidy. The plain literals are what they are, and the bnodes all denote in the usual way. OK, there can be several literal values for the same literal string: but this is just a fact: there can be, life is like that. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 13:30:39 UTC