- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:25:25 -0600
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Mar 7, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > 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?!! This is what I meant when I said that rdf:plainLIteral is a crock because it had to fit around the existing specs. We have an opportunity to do this better. Pat > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 22:26:15 UTC