Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>
> [Changes to two last paragraphs of Section 1]
>
> To address these deficiencies, this specification introduces a datatype
> called rdf:text, which uses the rdf: prefix because it refers to parts
> of the conceptual model of RDF.  This extension, however, does not
> change the conceptual model of RDF, and thus does not affect the
> specifications that depend on the conceptual model of RDF such as
> SPARQL.  The value space of rdf:text consists of all data values
> assigned to RDF plain literals, which allows RDF applications to
> explicitly refer to this set (e.g., in rdfs:range assertions).
>
> Because RDF plain literals are already a part of RDF and SPARQL
> syntaxes, rdf:text literals are always written as RDF plain literals in
> RDF and SPARQL syntaxes.

"literals are written as literals" is a use/mention confusion; a
literal can't be written
as a different literal, because it is already written. You're really
talking about how the
values are written. How about:

  Because the syntaxes of RDF and SPARQL already provide a way to
  write these values, they are always written using plain literals in
RDF and SPARQL,
  not as typed literals with type rdf:type_formerly_known_as_rdf_text.

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 21:24:45 UTC