RE: Literal ID's

• From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:16:23 -0000
• To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
• Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F239551@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

For my money, the spec says implementations MUST distinguish
between literals and resources so you should be ok.

Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Van Eetvelde [mailto:tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be]
> Sent: 06 December 2000 15:20
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Literal ID's
> 
> 
> I have a small question: "Is it allowed to have a resource ID 
> that is syntactically equal to a
> literal?". I know that some parsers have no problem with it 
> as they internally know (See RDF API)
> the type associated with "TVE". Therefore they see a resource 
> TVE and a literal TVE as 2 different
> things.
> 
> E.g.
> 
> <s:Person rdf:ID="TVE">
>         <s:initials> TVE </s:initials>
>         <s:firstName> Tom </s:firstName>
>         <s:lastName> Van Eetvelde </s:lastName>
> </s:Person>
> 

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 17:16:30 UTC