W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: goofy literals

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 12:16:38 +0100
Message-ID: <3EE07816.1070506@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

As promised the updated proposal, no change to the meaning of 'plain literal'.

PROPOSE
Accept danc-02.
Our design of literals was a bit goofy, and we have changed it:
[[
 > Section 6.5 RDF Literals
 >
 >
 > A literal in an RDF graph contains one or two named components.
 >
 > All literals have a lexical form being a Unicode [UNICODE] string in
 > Normal Form C [NFC].
 >
 > Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as
 > defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase.
 >
 > Typed literals have a lexical form and a datatype URI being an RDF URI
 > reference.
 >
 >
]]
Moreover, we believe some of the concern was to do with the denotation of
literals in the domain of discourse. To avoid copying any goofiness in the
abstract syntax into the domain of discourse,
we have hence changed the following rule in rdf-mt:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#gddenot
From
"if E is a plain literal then I(E) = E"
to
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#gddenot
"if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E) = aaa"
"if E is a plain literal "aaa"@ttt then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>"

The textual gloss is:
"Plain literals, without embedded datatypes, are always interpreted as
referring to themselves: either a character string or a pair consisting of
two character strings."

The informative text in concepts:
"As recommended in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain
literals are self-denoting."
is unchanged.
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 07:16:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:54 EDT