Re: "do nothing" proposal for plain literal/xsd:string (was: Re: SPARQL TC 2011-05-03 Agenda)

On 2011-05-03, at 13:50, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 5/2/2011 3:25 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> We need to decide what to do about simple literals / xsd:strings
>> 
>> thread:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0095.html
>> 
>> Nothing is a possibility but it needs to be an active decision, not a
>> silent default. We then need to feed that back to RDF-WG.
> 
> I'd propose we do nothing.
> 
> We already have that datatype("foo") is xsd:string.

CONCAT() could maybe do with changing, to reduce implementor confusion. The only example that stands out is:

concat("foo"^^xsd:string, "bar"^^xsd:string) -> "foobar"^^xsd:string

"If all input literals are typed literals of type xsd:string, then the returned literal is also of type xsd:string"

We could just remove that phrase, and change the example to "foobar", or we could just leave it as it is.

> The other (more important) thing that comes up is BGP matching. BGP matching is defined via "subgraph", which does not seem to reference any formal definition from RDF concepts (please correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> ...Actually, in section 2 this is informatively (why?) defined as being based on "RDF graph equivalen[ce]".
> 
> It's my hope that when/if the RDF WG goes forward with this change, the changes made to RDF will be such that :s :p "foo" and :s :p "foo"^^xsd:string are "RDF graph equivalent", and therefore SPARQL will simply "inherit" that change.
> 
> Is this hope unreasonable?

No.

- Steve


>> On 02/05/11 15:28, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I will hopefully upload a formal agenda hopefully later today at the
>>> usual place:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-05-03
>>> 
>>> but here is alrady what is planned for tomorrow:
>>> 
>>> We shall go through all documents:
>>> 
>>> 1) check with editors whether ready for LC publication
>>> - any open issues on to_last_call wiki?
>>> - any critical reviewer comments open?
>>> - any critical comments-list comments open?
>>> - pubrules check done?
>>> 2) PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft
>>> (we need a formal vote there, I assume for minor open issues, this can
>>> also vary to)
>>> PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft modulo ACTION-XYZ
>>> (i.e. allow us to assign actions to reviewers/editors to resolve minor
>>> issues bilaterally without the need for another formal group decision)
>>> 
>>> If editors could answer to the subitems of 1) prior to the call
>>> tomorrow, that might help us!
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> Axel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 13:13:35 UTC