- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:30:22 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard and Pat, (minor issues related to concepts and semantics) Langstrings are said to have a datatype IRI but no datatype is defined for them. Yet, the current spec refers to the "value space" of rdf:langString. So, it leaves me wondering, is rdf:langString denoting a datatype? If not, what's a value space of something which is not a datatype. If yes, whatever datatype it denotes does not follow the definition of datatype. Anyway, putting aside the phrasing of RDF Concepts, should the following triple be axiomatic: rdf:langString rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . My opinion is no. However, there should be: rdf:langString rdf:type rdfs:Class . Another point is: can rdf:langString be used as a datatype IRI in non-langstring literals? The current draft of RDF Concepts does not dissallow it, so one can write: <s> <p> "abc"^^rdf:langString . I think this should be forbidden. So, it's not only that langStrings MUST have a datatype IRI equal to rdf:langString, but also that any literal with this datatype IRI MUST have a language tag. This would have a consequence on the definition of datatype maps. If rdf:langString is not allowed for typed literals, then the following line should be added to Section 5.4: "A datatype map MUST not contain the IRI rdf:langString, as it is reserved for language-tagged strings and no formal datatype is defined for this IRI." Best, -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 09:30:58 UTC