W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > November 2016

shapes-ISSUE-198 (rdf:langString): rdf:langString not included in datatypes [SHACL Spec]

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:34:55 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1c7VGh-0001HD-AN@nash.w3.org>
shapes-ISSUE-198 (rdf:langString): rdf:langString not included in datatypes [SHACL Spec]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/198

Raised by: Karen Coyle
On product: SHACL Spec

>From email of 31 October 2016:[2]
>> *Karen*
>> 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?
> *Holger*
> 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
[2]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0001.html

***Proposal***

Modify definition of datatypes in SHACL to include rdf:langString from RDF schema. Also, is rdfs:Literal also needed? 
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 22:35:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 17 November 2016 22:35:01 UTC