W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:26:23 +0100
Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <CD0C2266-0E48-499C-9C6C-F51F6D715DE7@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 2011-06-20, at 05:50, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> [all Tos/CCs removed except for SPARQL WG and David Wood]
> 
> We need to discuss over email and tomorrow on our call how to approach this. Here are some miscellaneous thoughts -- I haven't studied this closely -- I guess that maybe Andy has thought about it significantly more than I have.
> 
> 0) As a WG, are we OK with this decision by the RDF WG? Do we have any feedback to send to the other WG?
> 
> 1) We ought to do whatever we can to make "foo" and "foo"^^xs:string parse as the same abstract thing (a typed literal with xs:string as its type) in SPARQL queries. I see two general approaches here, depending on _how_ the RDF WG implements their proposal.
> 
>  A) If they implement it by removing any mention of "plain literal" from their spec, then we need to do the same. This would be a pretty big change to SPARQL 1.1 Query, I think, and would also mean that SPARQL 1.1 Query probably could not advance to Rec until the RDF WG documents do?
> 
>  B) If they implement the proposal by redefining "plain literal" such that it means the same thing as "literal typed as xs:string", then we may not need to make much change to SPARQL at all. In that case, SPARQL 1.1 Query could proceed forward as normal, and once the new RDF documents were Recs, SPARQL's meaning would shift along with RDF's meaning. (This is my preferred method forward, but I don't know what the RDF editors intend, nor what's possible.)

Agreed.

> 2) We need to do something about the SPARQL Results XML Format. Specifically, we need to give guidance about how to serialize literals with type xs:string, since that's what all plain literals will now be. Perhaps the best path forward is to change this section:
> 
> """
> The value of a query variable binding, which is an RDF Term, is included as the content of the binding as follows:
> 
> RDF URI Reference U
>    <binding><uri>U</uri></binding>
> RDF Literal S
>    <binding><literal>S</literal></binding>
> RDF Literal S with language L
>    <binding><literal xml:lang="L">S</literal></binding>
> RDF Typed Literal S with datatype URI D
>    <binding><literal datatype="D">S</literal></binding>
> Blank Node label I
>    <binding><bnode>I</bnode></binding>
> """
> 
> in 2.3.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/#results)
> 
> (That section is already a bit less rigorous then it could be, since it refers to "RDF Literal S" rather than "RDF Plain Literal S without a language".)
> 
> My personal preference would be that the XML results format suggest that implementations SHOULD serialize an RDF literal with type xs:string as:
> 
>      <binding><literal>S</literal></binding>
> 
> ...excluding datatype="...string".
> 
> I'd prefer that this be a SHOULD and not a MUST.

Why? It's a relatively easy thing to implement, and it will make the clients job easier if there's only one form. Plus it will ease people into the RDF '04 -> RDF 1.1 transition.

- Steve

> We'll need a volunteer to make whatever change we decide here and to help with the publication process. We'll publish this as both a FPWD and LCWD in our next publication cycle.
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 6/15/2011 12:39 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 09:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT