Re: RDF-ISSUE-12 (String Literals): Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) [Cleanup tasks]

Le 07/03/2011 09:40, Andy Seaborne a écrit :
> rdf:PlainLiteral should never appear in RDF as a datatype.
> The literal should have been written in normal RDF form.
> [[ Sec 4:
> Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype are
> considered by this specification to be not valid in syntaxes for RDF
> graphs or SPARQL.
> To implement this design and provide this interoperability, applications
> that employ this datatype MUST use plain literals (instead of
> rdf:PlainLiteral typed literals) whenever a syntax for plain literals is
> provided, such as in existing syntaxes for RDF graphs and SPARQL results.
> ]]

Do we want to include this in RDF?
RDF says:

"""Everything of the form "blabla"^^someURI can be the object of a 

If we include rdf:plainLiteral in the spec of RDF, we then say:

"""Everything of the form "blabla"^^someURI can be the object of a 
triple *except* if someURI = rdf:plainLiteral."""

Which sounds weird. Or maybe this is optional, just to be considered for 
use with D-entailment?

Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 17:26:54 UTC