- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:15:26 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-04-14, at 14:03, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 4/14/2011 8:54 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> * 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. > > I just think it's simpler and less weird to have datatyped literals and languaged literals and nothing else. I disagree, and I think it's very odd that the canonical serialisation would be: "chat"^^xsd:string } "chat"@en-GB } - all xsd:strings "chat"@fr } v's "chat" } "chat"@en-GB } - all xsd:strings "chat"@fr } - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:15:58 UTC