- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:10:41 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 15:20 12/07/2002 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > > > <Jenny> <age> _:a . > > _:a <xsdr:decimal> "10" . > >What does the object of the second triple above have to do with the >two-character string '10'? I don't see any reason that literals are >strings. In fact, I believe that in RDF they are *not* strings. Please try to be helpful Peter. You clearly understand what the current specs define a literal to be. How is the distinction significant? [...] > > These test cases only relates to the situation where there are no range > > constraints on the properties. > >This deserves to be put in large, bold, red flashing type at the top of the >message. Yes. I'll send a separate post to emphasise that point. >Further, what does ``the same'' mean? Is it some semantic notion? Yes. The denotations are "the same". [...] > > tidy) the <ageInYears> property takes a value which is a numeral, > i.e. a > > string > >As I understand it, tidy RDF literals are not even strings, but instead are >structured data. That is the current status, though there is still some discussion on this point. Is the distinction significant. Brian
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 06:12:18 UTC