- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:50:00 -0800
- To: "xingwanghan@tju.edu.cn" <xingwanghan@tju.edu.cn>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
They are almost exactly the same, but the 1.1 reference is more correctly worded. The problem here is that the notion of 'literal' is defined in the RDF specs, and this changed subtly between RDF 1.0 (2004) and RDF 1.1 (2014). In 2004, a 'plain literal' had no type; in 2014, all literals have types, with the type assumed to be xsd:string if no type is specified in the RDF syntax (which is the old 2004 'plain literal' case). So a simple literal (since 2014) is a literal with no syntactically specified datatype IRI (or language tag), but which is understood by default to have the type xsd:string. This impacts SPARQL when a query constrains on the type of a value. Hope this helps. Pat Hayes On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:06 AM, xingwanghan@tju.edu.cn wrote: > Hi all: > I have a question about the definition of simple literal. > In SPARQL 1.0, I find the definition of simple literal is > • simple literal denotes a plain literal with no language tag. > And I search the SPARQL 1.1, I find the definition of simple literal change to that > 18.1.2 Simple Literal > > Definition: Simple Literal > > The set of Simple Literals is the set of all RDF Literals with no language tag or datatype IRI. > > I want to know If it is the same, or the last one is the right one ? > I want to make a definition of simple literal, but my research is based on sparql 1.0, the definition of simple literal make me > > Wish your reply! > Thank you! > xingwanghan@tju.edu.cn ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Friday, 18 December 2015 17:50:44 UTC