- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:23:57 +0200
- To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gavin, thanks for raising this. But as far as I can see, this issue is "still pending review" and anyway just considered for RDF 1.1, so current SPARQL implementations will still break on this. Anyway, in this respect I think it is important to find a way to indicate the language of the value for a "content" attribute in <meta content="xyz"> patterns in Microdata; I just found out that the language of the context will not be used by Microdata-to-RDF parsers. Martin On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp > <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: >> Ah! Thanks! That is a bug in my RDFa example. In all GoodRelations examples, we use datatyping, except for xsd:string, because while this is theoretically needed, too, the distinction between plain literals and typed RDF literals with xsd:string as their type is hard to explain to practitioners. > > The RDF WG has resolved to remove that distinction. "example" == > "example"^^xsd:string the current working draft of RDF Concepts talks > more about this, > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal > > Cheers, > Gavin
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:24:28 UTC