W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:45:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7543F3.5020008@epimorphics.com>
To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 07/03/11 17:26, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> 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?

The text?  I suppose so because it's in a spec somewhere so we ought to 
consolidate.

Best advice might be that parsers (input) are required to convert to 
plain literal form, so the rdf:PlainLiteral does not appear as a 
syntactic form.

> 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."""

The only reason it starts "rdf:" as far as I can see is that RIF and 
OWL2 couldn't agree to put in one namespace or the other so they 
encroached on RDF.  That's not a good reason.

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

And explaining that "blabla"^^rdf:plainLiteral is an illegal 
PlainLiteral, that a string (lexicial form) has to have a @ in it but it 
does not form part of the string (value) isn't weird?!!

	Andy
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 20:46:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC