- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:37:42 +0100
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 15/06/11 17:39, David Wood wrote: > 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. This would be good but it is not mentioned in the resolution by RDF-WG. SPARQL 1.0 uses "simple literals" for plain literals with language tag. They are used also for the lexical form of a literals itself and for the text of language tags. Andy > > 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 > > >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 12:38:18 UTC