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

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:43:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4DCD5195.5070908@thefigtrees.net>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> This feels weird. Ok, "foo" is of type string, even though the type is implicit, I can understand that. But why is it no longer a string if I tag it as English? Shouldn't it still have an implicit type of string? So you have replaced one weird thing (multiple ways of representing a string) with another weird thing (a notion of string datatypes that doesn't make sense).
>
> I think the sensible way would be:
> 1) every literal has *both* a datatype and a (possibly empty) language tag;
> 2) of the built-in datatypes, only xsd:string can have non-empty language tags;
> 3) plain literals and rdf:PlainLiterals don't exist;
> 4) "foo" in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string.
> 5) "foo"@en in concrete syntaxes is syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string@en.

I would love this, if it were workable. I just didn't think that that 
sort of change to the model was feasible to warrant consideration.

Lee

>
> This *might* work better than the rdf:PlainLiteral mess when translated into spec changes, but raises BC issues, and requires changes to syntax specs to add the syntactic sugar, so I prefer the proposal that says implementations MAY unify to plain literals, as it doesn't require changes to the abstract syntax.
>
>> As long as the surface forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string get normalized to the same thing (or systems have permission to do such normalization) then I'm happy.
>
> Good to hear that.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 15:43:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT