- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:21:35 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
> 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. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#operandDataTypes SPARQL also uses "RDF term" for any of literal, IRI or blank node. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#defn_RDFTerm Would it be useful to put such terminology into RDF Concepts etc.? Andy 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