W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: RDF-ISSUE-93 (non-langString): Give a name to "literals that are not language-tagged strings"

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:04:09 +0200
Message-ID: <50360019.1090608@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I understand your point and it's ok. I agree to close the ISSUE.


Le 22/08/2012 23:24, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:23, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> Do we want/need a name for literals that are not language-tagged
>> strings? Language-tagged strings are sometimes treated differently
>> that non-languaged-tagged strings, so that there will probably be
>> cases where it is necessary to refer to "literals that are not
>> language-tagged strings".
>
> Well, there might sometimes be cases where literals that are not of a
> numeric datatype need to be treated differently from anything else.
> That doesn't mean we should define a term for it.
>
> Why do you say "probably"? What are those cases?
>
>> The phrase is terrible and could be given a shorter name. If the
>> RDF WG does not define a name for this, another WG may do it (cf.
>> the notion of "simple literal" in SPARQL).
>
> If another WG needs it, then they should define it. If it sounds
> useful, a future RDF WG can roll it back into RDF Concepts. We
> shouldn't add it unless we have a good bit of evidence that it's
> needed.
>
>> A proposal: "typed literals".
>
> Seriously?
>
>> This will avoid countless confusions of people who are learning RDF
>> with older tutorials and publications. Plus, they *are* typed
>> literals in the sense that they *do* have a formal datatype (as
>> opposed to "No datatype is formally defined for
>> [rdf:langString]").
>
> The goal of the literal redesign was to have less exceptions and to
> streamline stuff. Because of that, all literals in RDF 1.1 now have a
> datatype IRI. Explaining why certain literals are not "typed
> literals" despite having a "datatype IRI" seems counter to that
> goal.
>
> I tend to call them "normal literals". "Normal literals, as opposed
> to language-tagged ones". Found that to be sufficient so far.
>
> Thinking about it, "untagged literals" would be reasonably accurate
> and short. I would still rather avoid that term if possible.
>
> Best, Richard
>

-- 
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 Thursday, 23 August 2012 10:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC