Additional terminology

 > plain literals without language tag

The need to describe this thing was so common in SPARQL 1.0 that Eric 
proposed "simple literal" for this.

SPARQL also uses "RDF term" for any of literal, IRI or blank node.

Would it be useful to put such terminology into RDF Concepts etc.?


On 21/04/11 09:12, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> All,
> I remind you what the resolution for ISSUE-12 says:
> "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."
> By marking xs:string as archaic, we say "Do not use xs:string". I repeat
> what I said: it means that I am not welcome to say:
> :myProperty rdfs:range xs:string .
> Other people agreed that this triple is perfectly fine. I am sure that
> it is not the intention of most people to forbid this. It seems that the
> only problem with xs:string is when it is used as the datatype of a
> literal, like "RDF"^^xs:string .
> I propose to cancel this resolution and make a new proposal:
> "Recommend that publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed
> literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to
> plain literals without language tag."
> This is very different from marking anything, like rdf:Alt, as archaic.
> If the group insists to mark xs:string as archaic, I'll formally object.
> AZ

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 09:22:01 UTC