- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:01:55 +0100
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 18 May 2011, at 20:24, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> Q3. Is this be a valid Turtle file? >>> >>> <a> <b> "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral . >> >> No. "foo@"^^rdf:PlainLIteral is barely legal but strongly deprecated in favor of the plain literal syntax. > > Huh? Isn't this legal? > > However, "foo" is not in the lexical space of rdf:PlainLiteral, so the > interpretation is not what one might expect. My apologies, I meant to say "foo@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral; and when I said “valid” I definitely meant to exclude ill-formed literals :-) But see here: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals >>> [T]he form of rdf:PlainLiteral literals in syntaxes for RDF graphs and for SPARQL is the already existing syntax for the corresponding plain literal, not the syntax for a typed literal. 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. Richard
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 20:02:23 UTC