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

Re: Additional terminology

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:02:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4DB7CDB3.2030505@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 27/04/11 01:19, Nathan wrote:
> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2011, at 22:58, Nathan 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.

We were driven by experience.

:x :p "foo" .

What is "foo"?

SPARQL has to be quite careful about this when defining the results of 
functions.  It needs to say "returns a plain literal without language 
tag" several times, hence inventing the terminology.  if it said "plain" 
literal, then the result might come back with a language tag.

Seems more relevant given 2011-04-13#resolution_1

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

Maybe - plain literals aren't "plain"!

>>> string vs text?
>>
>> Well, but “simple literals” are supposed to be a subkind of “plain
>> literals”, which are distinct from “typed literals”, so calling them
>> “string literals” when they are supposed to be “untyped” isn't very
>> clear either ...
>
> why not just have Literal, where each literal has an optional datatype /
> lang set.

We keep literal.

"simple literal" is terminology to avoid having to say something like:

"literal without datatype or language tag"
"plain literal without language tag"

when you need to be specific.

Re: "RDF Node"

Could have been that but a property isn't a node, in the graph sense of 
nodes and arcs, vertices and edges.

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 08:03:26 GMT

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