I like this idea!
Also I'd like to remind that some time ago we discussed a compact syntax
for non negative integers ($1, $5, $103, etc.). Thus it could
become:
$n would be $xsd*integer*'n' //where n
is a non negative integer
(i.e. we're assigning a default synonym to
$xsd*integer*'n', similar to
what happens with untyped literals that map by default to
strings)
Literals as subjects permitted, no problem to store a graph as a
set of XRIs, semantics applied in the widest scope. Everything seems to
match following this proposal! :-) Are there arguments against?
Giovanni
At 19.31 20/05/2008, Barnhill, William [USA] wrote:
Could you even still call the
second example a "literal"? Looks like it would just be an XRI
segment like everything else?
{wab:
Yep, Exactly! That's why I said in my earlier email I prefer the approach
of not having literals at all (like Drummond says), but still being able
to capture the semantics that literals imply by having literals just be
another type of XRI. What do you think?
}
