- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:36:45 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Persuant to
> 2005-11-15T15:28:13Z <DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to publish 1.538 +
> EBV/valueTesting note, plus
> rdfs:Datatype/DATATYPE change in table,
> DATATYPE("abc")=string? note, plus, we hope,
> edited changelog by DanC
> I've updated the DATATYPE function definition and appended the
> <issue/> below:
>
this looks quite good... one nit, to show I read it...
> [[
> rdfs:Datatype datatype (rdf:literal arg)
>
> If arg is a typed literal, as defined in Resource Description
> Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax [CONCEPTS] Section 6.5
> "RDF Literals", datatype returns the datatype URI of arg. It produces
> a type error if arg is an untyped literal.
>
> <issue>
> A literal is a Unicode string,
I think you mean plain literal.
> which correlates to an
> xsd:string. There is some interest in changing the last sentence of
> the preceeding paragraph to
>
> It produces a type error if arg has a language tag, and returns
> <xsd:string> if arg is an untyped literal without a language tag.
>
> This would make "asdf" and "asdf"^^xsd:string indisguishable to
> standard SPARQL queries. Some data maintenance queries (those
> searching for untyped literals) would require extension functions,
> and all untyped literals with no language tag would follow RDF
> Semantics xsd:string entailment. Please send related comments to
> public-rdf-dawg@w3.org.
> </issue>
> ]]
>
> Anyone have wording improvements?
>
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 22:36:47 UTC