W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2001

Re: RDF Core WG work on literals

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:56:47 -0400
To: GK@ninebynine.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010928125647Y.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
How does this match up against the pronouncement

	Two RDF strings are deemed to be the same if their ISO/IEC 10646
	representations match.

If you don't want to be XML, then why not just point to ISO/IEC 10646, or
pick some other, well-defined notion of string equivalence?  I'm not happy
at all with the fact that RDF has a 51 paragraph document just to define what
a literal is.


From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: RDF Core WG work on literals
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:06:12 +0100

> At 11:20 AM 9/28/01 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >I just finished going through some of the messages on the
> >w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org Mail archives concerning literals.  I am very
> >concerned that the RDF Core WG is going down a completely wrong path with
> >this work on literals.
> >
> >As an alternative proposal why not simply say that RDF literals are XML
> >strings, and use the semantics for the XML Schema string datatype?
> That would ignore the fact that RDF M&S considers language to be part of a 
> literal.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/, section 6:
> [[[
> The xml:lang attribute may be used as defined by [XML] to
> associate a language with the property value. There is no specific data
> model representation for xml:lang (i.e., it adds no triples to
> the data model); the language of a literal is considered by RDF to
> be a part of the literal.
> ]]]
> #g
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 12:55:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC