- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 08:57:38 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 20/11/2016 3:16, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 11/17/16 10:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> Hi Karen, >> >> - RDF 1.1 *does* mention rdf:langString (see the NOTE in >> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Datatypes) > > Yes, and it says there: > "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." > > So it treats it as an exception, and says that it is not defined as a > datatype. > > SKOS also describes language strings as an exception, of sorts: > "Formally, a lexical label is an RDF plain literal [RDF-CONCEPTS]. An > RDF plain literal is composed of a lexical form, which is a string of > UNICODE characters, and an optional language tag, which is a string of > characters conforming to the syntax defined by [BCP47]." > > This says to me that RDF plain literals are NOT included in datatypes. > xsd has xsd:string but that is not the same as the rdf literal. > > I can't say that this is crystal clear to me, but language strings > will be very important so I want it to be clear how they are handled > in SHACL. I have added a clarification to highlight the sh:datatype rdf:langString trick: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/94e68840b9d11e6ce0abdc79e296b607f8c024be HTH Holger > We do have a use case (U21) that requires that SHACL can be used to > validate SKOS vocabularies. I will try to find someone from the SKOS > community who has more knowledge of this. > > kc > > > >> >> - I see no need to explicitly enumerate all datatypes, because RDF 1.1 >> itself allows arbitrary IRIs to be used, including user-defined >> datatypes. I don't see why rdf:langString would be special. >> >> - I noticed however that with our recent edit to the semantics of >> sh:datatype we have lost an important detail, namely that the definition >> of what is the datatype of a literal must follow the semantics of the >> datatype operator in SPARQL [1]. I have added this clarification: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/eb8eca7d23a91ab884949bc337b5e1a0cee2f747 >> >> >> >> If you follow the SPARQL 1.1 link below, you will see that this >> explicitly mentions rdf:langString, so I think we are covered. >> >> Please let me know if this addresses your issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Holger >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-datatype >> >> >> On 18/11/2016 8:34, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> 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 Saturday, 19 November 2016 22:58:15 UTC