Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

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.


On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp
> <> 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,
> Cheers,
> Gavin

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:24:28 UTC