RE: [xdi] XDI graph as XRIs

[Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it>]

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?
}