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

Re: Action-48 text: a New Plan for plain literals

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:09:54 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <BD40C74A-FBFB-4FDF-BDAB-92AAB6E8CCBB@cyganiak.de>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On 24 May 2011, at 10:39, Steve Harris wrote:
> The difference would/could be in DATATYPE("foo"@en) in SPARQL.

Yes.

> If people write "foo"^^lang:en, then there will be some issues with pre-2011 systems.

??

I don't understand. What is lang:en? The proposal does not allow any new syntax, and in fact states: “7. In concrete syntaxes, the "foo"@en form MUST be used for rdf:LanguageTaggedStrings.” [1]


> The things I'm keen to avoid are e.g. in SPARQL Results, not having to emit:
> 
>   <binding><literal datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">foo</literal></binding>
> 
> For each plain literal result.

I have trouble parsing the double negation ...

The intention of the proposal is that *both* of the following would still be valid:

  <binding><literal>foo</literal></binding>
  <binding><literal datatype="&xsd;string">foo</literal></binding>

But implementations SHOULD use the first: “In concrete syntaxes, the "foo" form SHOULD be used instead of "foo"^^xsd:string” [1]

Best,
Richard


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedLiteralDatatypeProposal


> 
> - 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 Tuesday, 24 May 2011 11:10:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT