- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:54:31 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> [2011-04-14 07:25-0400] > On 4/14/2011 3:47 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > >Just a comment and what my votes would have been if I could have joined > >the session. > > > >======== > >PROPOSED: Mark xs:string as archaic for use in RDF, recommending use of > >plain literals instead. Recommend that systems silently convert > >xs:string data to plain literals. > > > >-1 > > > >I always thought of plain literals as a written utterance in an > >unspecified language. This is not what xs:strings are. Strings are a > >sequence of characters, irrespective of any language. They cannot be > >translated or assigned a language tag. xs:string should be used for > >things like serial numbers, identifiers, passwords, etc. > > > >I would rather have plain literals with no language tags implicitly > >meaning xs:string (as Jean-François proposed but it seemed unnoticed). > >xs:string is not defined by RDF anyway, I don't know why RDF should > >reject this particular XML datatype. > > > >If plain literals with no lang tag are implicitly typed with xs:string, > >then all literals have either a datatype or a language tag, which > >simplifies the manipulation of literals. > > I agree with this point of view. Are there use cases which motivate having a special datatype to indicate that there's no possibility of a langtag? I recognize that this datatype comes for free from XSD, but we have an opportunity to encourage simplification. The premise I question is whether the additional diversity (and likely confusion) that comes of promoting both xsd:string and plain literal solves more problems than it creates. > Lee > > > > >======= > >PROPOSED: close ISSUE-18 by requiring digits after the decimal point, as > >in "18.0". > >PROPOSED: Allow dots inside local part and namespace part of qnames in > >Turtle, aligning with SPARQL syntax > >PROPOSED: Turtle should remain as a syntax only for Triples, some other > >syntax should be defined to represent quad data > > > >+1 to all of these. > > > > > > > > > > > -- -ericP
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:54:23 UTC