- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:00:54 -0400
- To: public-rdf-text@w3.org
[FYI, today, SPARQL and RIF said they're okay with the current drafts; in RIF's case, this is modulo the name change being made in the builtins.] At the risk of waking sleeping dragons, Axel and I were talking about this delicate sentence: Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype do not occur in syntaxes for RDF graphs, nor in syntaxes for SPARQL. and how it seems normative, even though it's stated as purely logical. The confusion, as I understand it, is that typed literals with the datatype rdf:PlainLiteral: - DO NOT occur in the syntax, which means they - MUST NOT occur in the documents. This is a little confusing. Option 1: leave it as is (my vote: +0) Option 2: rephrase as: Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype are considered by this specification to be not valid in syntaxes for RDF graphs or SPARQL. (my vote: -0) Option 3: (just drop the sentence; it's doesn't add much itself.) (my vote: +1) That's it. (Dear sleeping dragons: If you're going to breath fire, please give me time to run away first.) -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:01:00 UTC