Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Subject: Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:17:17 -0500

> Thanks for working with me on this. Let me try once again:
> 
> <interpretation>
> 
> Because [syntactic] RDF plain literals are already a part of RDF and
> SPARQL syntaxes [e.g. RDF/XML], rdf:PlainLiteral literal [values] are
> written [by those who don't know about rdf:PlainLiteral syntax,
> because they don't know about it, and by those who do, because they
> are aware of this spec] as [syntactic] RDF plain literals in RDF and
> SPARQL syntaxes [except when they're written using some other syntax,
> such as xs:string].
> 
> [RDF graphs will usually not contain typed literal nodes with datatype
> RDF:PlainLiteral simply because the corresponding surface syntax won't
> be used.]
> 
> </interpretation>
> 
> Does that do it? I'm not proposing to include the bracketed parts, but
> I would like an interpretation of this sentence that you and I agree
> on captured in the email archive.
> 
> Best
> Jonathan

That is close enough.  The difficulty with the above wording is just
exactly how to handle xsd:string, of course.  How and when does the
"knowledge" of the xsd:string-iness affect the writing of a literal?  I
was trying to be careful to indicate that only things that were going to
be written as rdf:PlainLiteral typed literals would instead be written
as plain literals, so that neither are all xsd:string typed literals
caught in the "transform" not are xsd:string typed literals used as an
alternate "transform".

peter

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 12:34:38 UTC