- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:25:04 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/31/16 4:15 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > On 1/11/2016 1:55, Karen Coyle wrote: >> I think this is ok - "ill-typed literal" is also used in other >> standards (search "ill-typed literal site:w3.org"). >> >> This checks the ^^xsd:X literals. sh:nodeKind checks for IRI, bnode, >> or literal. There's one more type in RDF 1.1 [1] which is the >> "language-tagged string". We have sh:uniqueLang and sh:languageIn, but >> is there also a need to check that a literal is language-tagged? > > Being language-tagged is already checked via sh:datatype rdf:langString. > So I think that's handled OK. OK, but the terminology entry for "datatype" cites RDF 1.1 concepts, and rdf:langString doesn't appear in that document. It is defined in RDF Schema 1.1, though.[1] Does that mean it should be listed specifically with RDFS as its reference? kc [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/#ch_langstring > > Thanks, > Holger > > >> >> kc >> [1] >> https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#section-Graph-Literal >> >> >> On 10/30/16 10:06 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> I have made an edit to implement the resolution to ISSUE-158: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/77fd283597db8a5897a1d6ee2d53a50024a7c6d7 >>> >>> >>> >>> Could the WG please review that these changes are correct and specific >>> enough? The RDF spec uses the term "ill-typed literal". I don't know how >>> to define "the datatypes supported by SPARQL 1.1", and suspect we will >>> get questions on this. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 01:25:38 UTC