OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: test msg

Title: test msg

Pardon the interruption, please return to your regularly scheduled coding.

-----Original Message-----
From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it]
Sent: Tue 5/20/2008 2:54 PM
To: Barnhill, William [USA]; Markus Sabadello
Cc: Drummond Reed; Bill Barnhill; Nat Sakimura; tatsuki@nri.com; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xdi] XDI graph as XRIs

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?


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?
        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?

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]