W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Plain literals in Canonical N-triples

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:10:12 -0800
Message-ID: <6054684851794291458@unknownmsgid>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Dec 28, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 5:40 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/12/14 05:04, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 27, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, for once I am not coming from OWL :)
>>>>
>>>> I'm just writing a simple n-triples serializer, and I am not sure if I should simply always include the type if there is no @lang (e.g. ^^xsd:string)
>>>
>>> It was certainly the intention of the RDF 1.1 WG that every literal should have a type. We even provided a special 'type' for the @lang case, to preserve this intention. It seems to me that one should not ever go wrong by including the ^^xsd:string, which was semantically correct even in original RDF, whereas really plain plain literals now have the shadow of deprecation hanging over them, at the very least.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Pat Hayes
>>
>> And for serialization, the WG intention IIRC was that all ^^xsd:strings should be written without the ^^xsd:string in all formats where possible.
>
> Really? I have no recollection of that, but I may have missed some discussions. Can you find this in the minutes or emails anywhere?

I share Andy's recollection, and that is how my serializer behaves.
Shame that the spec-text doesn't cspture that.

Gregg

>> It look nicer.
>
> Maybe, but it also can produce uncertainty, as for example:
>
> "Before rdf 1.1 the norm tended to be to NOT express xsd:string unless it really was a character-by-character string (e.g. a genome identifier), and not when it was human text (but in unknown or mixed language)."
>
> Even in RDF 1.0, plain literals were specified to be semantically identical to xsd:string-typed literals, but this was buried in the semantics dociument which nobody read, and because the syntactic distinction was available, people assumed it meant something. As long as a syntax offers both choices, this misreading process will continue to operate, even now RDF 1.1 has said explicitly that plain literals are only syntactic sugar for the typed version.
>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal only says "MAY" -- that is mainly so as not to suggest much RDF 1.0 data output by pre-existing software is suddenly invalidated, which it isn't.
>
> Certainly, plain literal surface syntax is not *invalidated* by RDF 1.1. Sorry if I gave that impression.
>
> Pat
>
>
>>
>>    Andy
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> ..Or if I should have a special case to output anything with type xsd:string as a classic "plain literal", e.g. no @ or ^^.
>>>>
>>>> Surely just one of these should be in the canonical version ? My guts says to always include the type for non-lang, but the spec is ambigous on this - if xsd:string is implied, should I then prefer to generate this implied version?
>>>>
>>>> Before rdf 1.1 the norm tended to be to NOT express xsd:string unless it really was a character-by-character string (e.g. a genome identifier), and not when it was human text (but in unknown or mixed language).
>>>>
>>>> As we SHOULD be generating the Canonical N-Triples, then it would be good to know if there already is a silent de facto agreement that is just not expressed in the spec.
>>>>
>>>> You might know the code base -
>>>> https://github.com/stain/commons-rdf/blob/tests/src/test/java/com/github/commonsrdf/dummyimpl/LiteralImpl.java#L99
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Dec 2014 17:14, "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Stian,
>>>>
>>>> RDF-1.1 does not have the concept of plain literals [1]. Hence, it is
>>>> difficult to map the OWL-WG-derived rdf:PlainLiteral set to RDF-1.1,
>>>> if that is where you are coming at the issue from [2].
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#section-Graph-Literal
>>>> [2] https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/issues/172
>>>>
>>>> On 27 December 2014 at 16:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In http://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/#canonical-ntriples I read:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Canonical N-Triples has the following additional constraints on layout:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The whitespace following subject, predicate, and object MUST be a single space, (U+0020). All other locations that allow whitespace MUST be empty.
>>>>>>    There MUST be no comments.
>>>>>>    HEX MUST use only uppercase letters ([A-F]).
>>>>>>    Characters MUST NOT be represented by UCHAR.
>>>>>>    Within STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE, only the characters U+0022, U+005C, U+000A, U+000D are encoded using ECHAR. ECHAR MUST NOT be used for characters that are allowed directly in STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and in http://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/#sec-parsing-terms
>>>>>
>>>>>> If neither a language tag nor a datatype IRI is provided, the literal has a datatype of xsd:string.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and in http://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/#sec-literals
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no datatype IRI and no language tag it is a simple literal and the datatype is http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Example 3
>>>>>>    <http://example.org/show/218> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "That Seventies Show"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string> . # literal with XML Schema string datatype
>>>>>>    <http://example.org/show/218> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "That Seventies Show" . # same as above
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I am not any wiser with regards to how to serialize plain literals
>>>>> in RDF 1.1 Canoical N-Triples..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are both of the two examples allowed in Canonical N-Triples? (it seems
>>>>> so by the spec.. :-( ).
>>>>>
>>>>> Which variant should I generate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
>>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
>>> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 December 2014 00:10:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:00 UTC