Re: New PR: yet another refactoring of the semantics

On 29/04/2021 18:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 4/29/21 12:37 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> On 29/04/2021 15:53, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>
>>> The proposal uses all-new local vocabulary for encoding embedded
>>> triples.  I don't see any reason to not use unstar:subject, etc.
>>
>> do you mean rdf:subject, etc?
> 
> 
> Actually I meant just the local part.  Why not use unstar:subject, etc?
> 
>>
>> No particular reason really, except that defining the "meddling" is 
>> easier when all IRIs are in the same namespace.
>>
>>>  I
>>> also don't see any reason to use abbreviations, e.g., sString instead
>>> of subjectLexical
>>
>> No particular reason either. We can definitely rename them to 
>> something more explicit.
>>
>>> There might be a bug in the proposal.  It appears that the IRI x and
>>> the string <x> are both mapped by L to "<x>"^^xsd:string.  I believe
>>> that this has consequences.
>>
>> Not exactly. The string "<x>" is actually mapped to
>>   "\"<x>\""^^xsd:string
> 
> 
> That's not what the PR says.
> 
>    If t is itself a literal with the |xsd:string| datatype 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-datatype>, the representation 
> /MUST/ be a simple literal 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-simple-literal>.

Ohh, that!

The intent was that "<x>" be mapped to
   "\"<x>\""^^xsd:string
rather than to
   "\"<x>\"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>"^^xsd:string

The keyword is "representation" here...
The lexical value of the resulting literal is an N-Triples 
representation of the source literal, and that representation must be a 
simple literal...

But granted, this needs some clarification.

>    Please note that concrete syntaxes /MAY/ support simple literals 
> consisting of only a lexical form 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-lexical-form> without any 
> datatype IRI <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-datatype-iri> or 
> language tag <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-language-tag>.
> 
>    a lexical form, being a Unicode [UNICODE 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#bib-UNICODE>] string, which 
> /SHOULD/ be in Normal Form C [NFC 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#bib-NFC>],
> 
> So the simple literal for "<x>" is <x>. even though the path to get 
> there doesn't make much sense in this context.
> 
> You probably should say
> 
>    If t is itself a literal with the |xsd:string| datatype 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-datatype>, the representation 
> /MUST/ be a|||STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE (from N-Triples grammar)|
> 
> |and maybe add|
> 
> | i.e., without the datatype portion.
> |
That's what the reference to "simple literal" was supposed to convey, in 
a more compact form :-)

   pa

> 
>>
>> best
>>
>>   pa
>>
>