- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:26:48 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 25 May 2011, at 00:46, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > it may be odd if we effectively deprecate xsd:string for RDF (surface syntax ...) but still have subtypes lying around ... The proposal does not call for the deprecation (effective or not) of xsd:string. The proposal is to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax. In concrete syntaxes, both "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string forms would still be allowed. The former would be syntactic sugar, just like 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer in Turtle. There should be some language to the effect that "foo" is preferred, simply for ergonomic reasons. I phrased this as a SHOULD in the proposal. Weaker language might be sufficient in the general case. Or maybe expressing this preference is altogether unnecessary. Some syntaxes have use cases that are hampered by the variability introduced by syntactic sugar. N-Triples and SPARQL Results XML/JSON, mostly. I think these syntaxes should make a stronger statement in their respective syntax spec. Perhaps forbid one of the forms when serializing. Which one doesn't really matter. Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 09:27:17 UTC