- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:22:10 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 26 Apr 2011, at 22:58, Nathan wrote: >>>> 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. >> Perhaps this particular class of literals is particularly prominent in SPARQL, but from my reading of the RDF Recommendation Set it doesn't actually occur all that often. >> “Simple literal” vs “plain literal” isn't very clear naming. > > string vs text? Well, but “simple literals” are supposed to be a subkind of “plain literals”, which are distinct from “typed literals”, so calling them “string literals” when they are supposed to be “untyped” isn't very clear either ... What a nice mess we're in :-) Richard
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 22:22:39 UTC