- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:37:48 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>> (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. It's "SHOULD" in RDF [[ 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; recommends that SPARQL and other WGs does the same ]] > > - 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 12:38:19 UTC