Re: FPWD comment - literals, data types and language tags

Hi Randall,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Randall Leeds <> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <
>> wrote:
>> Having to explain to developers with an RDF background why this triple
>> > <> oa:body "hi"@en .
>> is illegal in OA would be a royal pain.
> Can anyone clarify for me? I am not understanding why this would be an
> illegal triple.
> Isn't this object the resource {"@language": "en", "@value": "hi"} ?
> What's illegal here? I only see that the resulting triple does not
> serialize as a literal in JSON-LD, but it does have a valid serialization.

That's a literal, not a resource (which demonstrates the confusion or at
least the intuitive terminology problem :) )

It's currently illegal according to the spec because you can't have a
language tagged literal as the body, only an xsd:string. All language
tagged literals have a special data type in RDF "" (see: and thus cannot
be of any other data type.
You also can't give it any other properties, type or identity.

Allowing it would make all of the possibilities I listed earlier in the
thread valid, requiring systems check for the different variants for the
sake of making developers' lives ... easier?


Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 21:08:24 UTC