It's too bad rdf:nil is only for lists -- I think it could be handy in many
other contexts. But just using an empty string should be fine:
_:bn1 .
_:bn1 .
_:bn1 "UTF-8" .
_:bn1 "" .
I'm not sure I got much from that "Problems of the RDF model" piece, other than
the fact that literals ar
This mentions empty strings but doesn't give an example of one:
*Lexical Space.* An rdf:PlainLiteral lexical form is a string of the
form "/abc/@/langTag/" where "/abc/" is an arbitrary (possibly empty)
string, and "/langTag/" is either the empty string or a (not necessarily
lowercase) languag
Yes, I was thinking you would create a content as text node, and just leave the
value blank (or maybe use something like rdf:nil).
And the good thing about qnames is that you can use whatever you want. I
always use "mads:" instead of "madsrdf:" for MADS, and would use "cat:" or
"content:" for
Hmm. For the missing title would you create a content as text node with
a blank body? How does RDF handle empty strings?!
(And I'm sorry to say that the qname for content as text is "cnt" - I'm
going to have to just get over the dis-ease that causes me )
kc
On 9/14/13 6:47 AM, Esmé Cowles wr
This reminds me of a conversation (that did not come to a conclusion) on
the BIBFRAME list about the need to have a way to say that a bit of data
is transcribed, not transcribed, or supplied. And that reminds me of the
issues with SKOS labels, which is that if your data is text, not a URI,
you
