- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 00:20:10 -0400
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
...
> STR("Hello@"^^xs:string)= STR("Hello@"^^rdf:text) = "Hello@"
> STR("Hello@en")=
> STR("Hello@en"^^rdf:text)=
> STR("Hello@en"^^xs:string)= "Hello"@en"
you mean "Hello@en" I assume
...
> As a consequence, I believe that the LC comment of the SPARQL WG
> should be addressed by simply removing any mention of literal
> replacement during graph exchange. This makes it clear that rdf:text
> is just another, regular datatype that is in no way different from the
> other XML Schema or user-defined datatypes.
Hmmmm. Okay, this approach might make sense, yeah.
I'd think we should at least include a practical, non-normative warning
that rdf:text is not usuable as a general-purpose replacement for RDF
plain literals, because RDF systems in general do not implement rdf:text
D-entailment.
But more than that, in practice, RIF and OWL systems are going to need
to rewrite rdf:text terms into plain literals during output, I think, so
... don't we need to say that somewhere?
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 04:20:23 UTC