- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:36:42 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
In your proposal, rdf:Text is equivalent to rdf:PlainLiteral so it seems redundent. Moreover, rdf:PlainLiteral was originally called rdf:text (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-rdf-text-20090421/ for instance) but this name was rejected because the concept of "text" includes many other features like directionality, font, structure, etc. I suggest some changes below: Le 13/07/2011 16:51, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > We have addressed one half of ISSUE-12, the half about string literals *without* language tags. > > Here's a proposal for the other half, string literals *with* language tags and rdf:PlainLiteral. This is a very minimalist proposal. > > Summary: > - add classes rdf:LangString and rdf:Text so we can better specify string literals as rdfs:range of properties don't add rdf:Text. > - add the technical term “language-tagged string” as an alternative to the current “plain literal with language tag” > - ask OWL and RIF WGs to update rdf:PlainLiteral document to reflect the RDF WG decisions > > (This completes my ACTION-62.) > > Best, > Richard > > > [[ > > A literal is either a typed literal or a language-tagged string. > > A language-tagged string is an<Unicode string, language tag> pair. > > "Plain literal with language tag" (from RDF 2004) is an alternative term for "language-tagged string". They are the same thing. > > rdf:LangString is the class of all language-tagged strings. It can be used in rdfs:range statements. > > rdf:Text is the class of all language-tagged strings and all Unicode strings. It can be used in rdfs:range statements. remove this line. > The RDF Concepts document is updated with the definitions above. No other changes to RDF Concepts. > > The RDF Semantics document is updated to make rdf:LangString and rdf:Text work. No other changes to RDF Semantics. remove "and rdf:Text" > The RDF Schema document is updated to add rdf:LangString and rdf:Text. No other changes to RDF Schema. remove "and rdf:Text" > The SPARQL WG is asked to *consider* whether DATATYPE("foo"@en) should return rdf:LangString instead of error. if rdf:LangString is not a datatype, then I think SPARQL should'nt return it. Does SPARQL return rdfs:Literal? > The OWL and RIF WGs are asked to make changes to the rdf:PlainLiteral specification: > > - Clarify that the purpose of the document is *solely* to provide > compatibility between RDF and specifications whose literal > design does not support language tags. It is not the only purpose of rdf:PlainLiteral. The essential purpose, AFAIK, is to allow systems to type all literals. It also makes possible the definition of complex datatypes (for instance, it is possible to define a datatype equivalent to your rdf:LangString, or to the English-tagged strings, etc). Without a proper datatype for that, such definitions are not possible. > - The spec should be changed to *only* cover strings *with* language > tags, because strings without language tags now always have a > datatype (xsd:string) and therefore don't need to be covered in this > spec. > > - Instead of defining its complete own datatype rdf:PlainLiteral, > the spec should only extend the rdf:LangString class so that > it can serve as a datatype. > > ]] -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13 Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 07:37:14 UTC