RE: Reference versus xsd:anyURI Literal in JSON-LD

• From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
• Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:26:22 +0800
• To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <006701cc3f8b$1515b550$3f411ff0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>

> My interpretation of the RDF WG's recommendation is that we could use
> xsd:string to refer to string literals without a language and
> rdf:PlainLiteral to refer to literals that may have a language but not
> a datatype. rdfs:Literal denotes a literal that may have either a
> language, a datatype or neither.
> 
> The only reason to use something like "@literal" would be to avoid
> introducing RDF terms, but semantically I think they're describing much
> the same thing.
> 
> Your use of "@literal" is effectively the same as "xsd:string", in
> which case I'd just use that. If we need to say something about
> literals that don't have a datype, we could use rdf:PlainLiteral, but I
> don't see why this is necessary.

I would really favor to remove those XSD datatypes from the spec altogether.
Why should be create "dependency" on XSD for a approach based completely on
JSON? Is there any advantage of doing so?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 05:27:07 UTC