- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:09:54 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 24 May 2011, at 10:39, Steve Harris wrote:
> The difference would/could be in DATATYPE("foo"@en) in SPARQL.
Yes.
> If people write "foo"^^lang:en, then there will be some issues with pre-2011 systems.
??
I don't understand. What is lang:en? The proposal does not allow any new syntax, and in fact states: “7. In concrete syntaxes, the "foo"@en form MUST be used for rdf:LanguageTaggedStrings.” [1]
> The things I'm keen to avoid are e.g. in SPARQL Results, not having to emit:
>
> <binding><literal datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string">foo</literal></binding>
>
> For each plain literal result.
I have trouble parsing the double negation ...
The intention of the proposal is that *both* of the following would still be valid:
<binding><literal>foo</literal></binding>
<binding><literal datatype="&xsd;string">foo</literal></binding>
But implementations SHOULD use the first: “In concrete syntaxes, the "foo" form SHOULD be used instead of "foo"^^xsd:string” [1]
Best,
Richard
[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedLiteralDatatypeProposal
>
> - Steve
>
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 11:10:36 UTC