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: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:37:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFF3F1C.9010201@epimorphics.com>
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 GMT

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