W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: status of rdf:langString

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:10:38 +0100
Message-ID: <512E21EE.7090603@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Ah yes, I see what you mean.
In fact, it's just said that rdf:langString is a *datatype IRI* but it's 
not explicitly said that this IRI is denoting a datatype.

An in fact, the note that says:

"Language-tagged strings have the datatype IRI 
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString. No datatype is 
formally defined for this IRI because the definition of datatypes does 
not accommodate language tags in the lexical space. The value space 
associated with this datatype IRI is the set of all pairs of strings and 
language tags."

is even saying that it cannot be a datatype by definition!

Since all this have been debated a lot, taking in consideration the 
semantics too, and we reached consensus, I expect that the goal now is 
not to change the concepts but to make a semantics for what concepts are 
right now. Only if there is a strong justification against what is in 
concepts from the semantic side, then the concepts should be revised.

Here, what you propose as a solution (having rdf:langString being an 
instance of rdfs:Datatype without being a datatype seems to me an 
adequate solution.


Le 27/02/2013 15:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> On 02/27/2013 02:06 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> Le 26/02/2013 21:08, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>>> Is rdf:langString a datatype? It sure looks as if it should be, but it
>>> isn't.
>> It is.
> There is lots of wording strongly suggesting otherwise.
>>> The OWL WG finessed this issue a different way, that was consistent with
>>> datatypes. This could be done here as well (the datatype rdf:langString
>>> takes strings of the form "xxx@ll", ...), but maybe my proposed fix for
>>> the Semantics could be made visible in Concepts.
>> We have debated this extensively and we reach an agreement. What you
>> propose was proposed then, was rejected then (personally, I was in
>> favour of it).
> I'm not arguing (any more) for this solution, just a resolution on the
> status of rdf:langString that is carried through in the documents. I
> suppose that it could be an instance of rdfs:Datatype without being a
> datatype, but that seems a bit strange (although not semantically
> ill-formed).
>> AZ
> peter

Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 15:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:10 UTC