- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:43:44 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 27/05/11 19:43, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 27 May 2011, at 11:33, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> Why not declare a class rdf:String that is the features we want and leave rdf:PlainLiteral, with all it's datatype features that are being used, alone? (make it a subclass). > ... >> A reasonable expectation of users (whether technically right or not - people have intuitions about strings) >> >> skos:prefLabel rdfs:range<datatype> >> >> is that they can write >> >> <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^<datatype> . > > Huh? > > You still can't say > > skos:prefLabel rdfs:range rdf:String . > <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^rdf:String . > > unless you define a lexical space, and this would take us right back to the rdf:PlainLiteral "foo@en" mess. rdf:String isn't a datatype. It's a class only. Only the base of the subclass hierarchies are datatypes: rdf:LangTaggedString and xsd:string But rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype already, which I see as odd. > Also, I don't like having both xsd:string and rdf:String with different meaning. What name would work for you? My point about partial use of rdf:PlainLiteral still stands. > > Richard Andy
Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 20:44:16 UTC