- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:34:07 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Seaborne, Andy'" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, 'Alan Ruttenberg' <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-rdf-text@w3.org, 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>, 'Axel Polleres' <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On May 20, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:38:29PM +0200, Boris Motik wrote: >> .... >> If such a solution doesn't exist yet, then the SPARQL WG should >> address these >> issues, and it should do so in general for all datatypes >> (xsd:integer, >> xsd:decimal, and so on), not just for rdf:text. > > I'd argue that it's more of an RDF Core issue (admitting that they > don't exist). I agree. The elegant solution would be to have a single RDF literal form "string"@tag^^type where @tag and ^^type are both optional, and have the type rdf:text be optionally invisible, so that "foo"@baz is an abbreviation form for "foo"@baz^^rdf:text . Then existing RDF is still legal, all the needed entailments are RDF entailments, and RIF and OWL2 have their datatype, and we wouldn't have that ugly trailing "@" inside the string quotes. Maybe its time to re-convene RDF Core to clean up this and other bits of left-over RDF junk. Who has the authority to do this? Pat
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:34:53 UTC