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

Additional terminology

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:21:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4DAFF71F.40102@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
 > plain literals without language tag

The need to describe this thing was so common in SPARQL 1.0 that Eric 
proposed "simple literal" for this.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#operandDataTypes

SPARQL also uses "RDF term" for any of literal, IRI or blank node.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#defn_RDFTerm

Would it be useful to put such terminology into RDF Concepts etc.?

	Andy

On 21/04/11 09:12, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> All,
>
>
> I remind you what the resolution for ISSUE-12 says:
>
> "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."
>
> By marking xs:string as archaic, we say "Do not use xs:string". I repeat
> what I said: it means that I am not welcome to say:
>
> :myProperty rdfs:range xs:string .
>
> Other people agreed that this triple is perfectly fine. I am sure that
> it is not the intention of most people to forbid this. It seems that the
> only problem with xs:string is when it is used as the datatype of a
> literal, like "RDF"^^xs:string .
>
> I propose to cancel this resolution and make a new proposal:
>
> "Recommend that publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed
> literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to
> plain literals without language tag."
>
> This is very different from marking anything, like rdf:Alt, as archaic.
>
> If the group insists to mark xs:string as archaic, I'll formally object.
>
>
> AZ
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 09:22:01 GMT

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