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

Re: Additional terminology

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:14 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <8399D14A-24C0-4D1A-A77A-3FF5EF4629B5@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 21 Apr 2011, at 10:21, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > 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.

Perhaps this particular class of literals is particularly prominent in SPARQL, but from my reading of the RDF Recommendation Set it doesn't actually occur all that often.

“Simple literal” vs “plain literal” isn't very clear naming.

> SPARQL also uses "RDF term" for any of literal, IRI or blank node.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#defn_RDFTerm

Yes, I can see this as being very useful, and it would help throughout the specs. I often call exactly the same thing “RDF node” (because it's the kind of thing that can be a node in an RDF graph) and have a *slight* preference for that over “RDF term”.

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

In general, yes, for promoting a unified language across W3C specs.


> 	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 Tuesday, 26 April 2011 21:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC