Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals

I do not see from this formalism where language tags are handled, however. Those are _not_ covered by the WG resolution...

Ivan

On Jun 16, 2011, at 14:41 , Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> * Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> [2011-06-16 09:36+0200]
>> I am not sure this has an effect on R2RML or DM; possibly not. But you may want to know about that anyway!
> 
> It could simplify
> [[
> [46] ⟦r, c⟧lex = let p = ⟦table(r), fk⟧col in
>                 let v = value(r, c) in
>                 let d = datatype(header(table(r))(c)) in
>                 if v is NULL then ∅
>                 else if d is String then {(p, v)}
>                      else let datatype_iri = ⟦d⟧datatype in
>                           {(p, (v, datatype_iri))}
> ]] — http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/#lexical-semantics
> and add a line to
> [[
> [50] ⟦d⟧datatype = if d is Int then XSD:integer
>                   else if d is Float then XSD:float
>                   else if d is Date then XSD:date
>                   ⋯
> ]] — http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/#datatype-semantics
> . I think we should explicitly call out that the datatype mapping is now more uniform (get's rid of "if d is String then {(p, v)}") and mention parenthetically to the reader that "ab"^^xsd:string is actually written "ab".
> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> Resent-From: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
>>> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
>>> Date: June 15, 2011 18:39:19 GMT+02:00
>>> To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
>>> Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C SW CG Group <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>>> Subject: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals
>>> message-id: <5F656216-FE45-426E-A93E-4E90DDC3BE3D@3roundstones.com>
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> The RDF working group resolved our ISSUE-12 [1] today, which is intended to "reconcile various forms of string literals".
>>> 
>>> We resolved to accept the proposal at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
>>> with the modification that preferred output form (SHOULD) is "foo" not "foo"^^xsd:string in RDF; and we recommend that SPARQL and other WGs do the same.
>>> 
>>> Discussion highlighted several possible areas of concern, which we believe the current proposal addresses.  Specifically, it was noted that:
>>> 
>>> - The forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string are equivalent input syntaxes.
>>> - The form "foo" is the preferred output syntax.
>>> - The WG suggests retaining the term "plain literal" in documents to avoid unnecessary rework.  Such plain literals would be considered semantically equivalent to xsd:strings.
>>> 
>>> NB: This resolution makes *no statement* about language-tagged literals (e.g. "foo"@en).
>>> 
>>> We invite discussion regarding the ramifications of this resolution to other working groups and implementors.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 13:15:57 UTC