W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Comments on this afternoon session on Turtle

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:15:26 +0100
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4F8E73F9-306C-4061-902B-65B6B54BA58B@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 2011-04-14, at 14:03, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 4/14/2011 8:54 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Lee Feigenbaum<lee@thefigtrees.net>  [2011-04-14 07:25-0400]
>>> On 4/14/2011 3:47 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>>> Just a comment and what my votes would have been if I could have joined
>>>> the session.
>>>> 
>>>> ========
>>>> PROPOSED: Mark xs:string as archaic for use in RDF, recommending use of
>>>> plain literals instead. Recommend that systems silently convert
>>>> xs:string data to plain literals.
>>>> 
>>>> -1
>>>> 
>>>> I always thought of plain literals as a written utterance in an
>>>> unspecified language. This is not what xs:strings are. Strings are a
>>>> sequence of characters, irrespective of any language. They cannot be
>>>> translated or assigned a language tag. xs:string should be used for
>>>> things like serial numbers, identifiers, passwords, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I would rather have plain literals with no language tags implicitly
>>>> meaning xs:string (as Jean-François proposed but it seemed unnoticed).
>>>> xs:string is not defined by RDF anyway, I don't know why RDF should
>>>> reject this particular XML datatype.
>>>> 
>>>> If plain literals with no lang tag are implicitly typed with xs:string,
>>>> then all literals have either a datatype or a language tag, which
>>>> simplifies the manipulation of literals.
>>> 
>>> I agree with this point of view.
>> 
>> Are there use cases which motivate having a special datatype to
>> indicate that there's no possibility of a langtag? I recognize that
>> this datatype comes for free from XSD, but we have an opportunity to
>> encourage simplification.
>> 
>> The premise I question is whether the additional diversity (and likely
>> confusion) that comes of promoting both xsd:string and plain literal
>> solves more problems than it creates.
> 
> I just think it's simpler and less weird to have datatyped literals and languaged literals and nothing else.

I disagree, and I think it's very odd that the canonical serialisation would be:

"chat"^^xsd:string          }
"chat"@en-GB                } - all xsd:strings
"chat"@fr                   }

v's

"chat"                      }
"chat"@en-GB                } - all xsd:strings
"chat"@fr                   }

- Steve

-- 
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 Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:15:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT