Re: Fwd: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals

* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> [2011-06-16 09:36+0200]
> I am not sure this has an effect on R2RML or DM; possibly not. But you may want to know about that anyway!

It could simplify
[[
[46] ⟦r, c⟧lex = let p = ⟦table(r), fk⟧col in
                 let v = value(r, c) in
                 let d = datatype(header(table(r))(c)) in
                 if v is NULL then ∅
                 else if d is String then {(p, v)}
                      else let datatype_iri = ⟦d⟧datatype in
                           {(p, (v, datatype_iri))}
]] — http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/#lexical-semantics
and add a line to
[[
[50] ⟦d⟧datatype = if d is Int then XSD:integer
                   else if d is Float then XSD:float
                   else if d is Date then XSD:date
                   ⋯
]] — http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/#datatype-semantics
. I think we should explicitly call out that the datatype mapping is now more uniform (get's rid of "if d is String then {(p, v)}") and mention parenthetically to the reader that "ab"^^xsd:string is actually written "ab".

> Ivan
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > Resent-From: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
> > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> > Date: June 15, 2011 18:39:19 GMT+02:00
> > To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
> > Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C SW CG Group <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> > Subject: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals
> > message-id: <5F656216-FE45-426E-A93E-4E90DDC3BE3D@3roundstones.com>
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The RDF working group resolved our ISSUE-12 [1] today, which is intended to "reconcile various forms of string literals".
> > 
> > We resolved to accept the proposal at:
> >  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
> > with the modification that preferred output form (SHOULD) is "foo" not "foo"^^xsd:string in RDF; and we recommend that SPARQL and other WGs do the same.
> > 
> > Discussion highlighted several possible areas of concern, which we believe the current proposal addresses.  Specifically, it was noted that:
> > 
> > - The forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string are equivalent input syntaxes.
> > - The form "foo" is the preferred output syntax.
> > - The WG suggests retaining the term "plain literal" in documents to avoid unnecessary rework.  Such plain literals would be considered semantically equivalent to xsd:strings.
> > 
> > NB: This resolution makes *no statement* about language-tagged literals (e.g. "foo"@en).
> > 
> > We invite discussion regarding the ramifications of this resolution to other working groups and implementors.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 12:41:38 UTC