W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-text@w3.org > April to June 2009

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

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:17:17 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0906010517ge52ba70j3763830a96f1078b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Thanks for working with me on this. Let me try once again:

<interpretation>

Because [syntactic] RDF plain literals are already a part of RDF and
SPARQL syntaxes [e.g. RDF/XML], rdf:PlainLiteral literal [values] are
written [by those who don't know about rdf:PlainLiteral syntax,
because they don't know about it, and by those who do, because they
are aware of this spec] as [syntactic] RDF plain literals in RDF and
SPARQL syntaxes [except when they're written using some other syntax,
such as xs:string].

[RDF graphs will usually not contain typed literal nodes with datatype
RDF:PlainLiteral simply because the corresponding surface syntax won't
be used.]

</interpretation>

Does that do it? I'm not proposing to include the bracketed parts, but
I would like an interpretation of this sentence that you and I agree
on captured in the email archive.

Best
Jonathan
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 12:17:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 June 2009 12:17:58 GMT