- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:26:20 +0100
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ > [[ 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 triple.""" 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? Regards, -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France 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 Monday, 7 March 2011 17:26:54 UTC