RE: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week

"The results of matching SPARQL basic graph patterns in an entailment regime that understands rdf:text MUST provide variable bindings in existing RDF plain literal form." [1]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0229.html


Or [2]
"""
Systems that employ SPARQL with entailment regimes that cover D-entailment of rdf:text, MUST expose their results in the RDF forms.  This condition is met when the scoping graph contains literals in the RDF forms plain literals and xsd:string and does not mention rdf:text as a datatype.
"""
Ref: "12.6 Extending SPARQL Basic Graph Matching"
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlBGPExtend


The first is a direct statement and, to me, clearer.  A link to .../rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlBGPExtend would be good.

 Andy

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0229.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0146.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 01 June 2009 18:41
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: sandro@w3.org; public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This all may or may not matter.    If it does matter then the document
> wording will have to be adjusted.  If it does not matter then adjusting
> the dcoument wording should be innocuous.  So, let Sandro know your
> desired wording and have him make the edits.  (I'm in an all day meeting
> today.)

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 18:46:36 UTC