- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:19:30 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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 ... why not just have Literal, where each literal has an optional datatype / lang set.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 00:21:06 UTC