- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:04:34 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 12:56 PM 9/28/01 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >How does this match up against the pronouncement > > Two RDF strings are deemed to be the same if their ISO/IEC 10646 > representations match. Ah, that would appear to be a contradiction. #g -- [...] > > >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. > > ]]] ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 13:16:58 UTC