- From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:23:36 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-93 (non-langString): Give a name to "literals that are not language-tagged strings" http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/93 Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann On product: Do we want/need a name for literals that are not language-tagged strings? Language-tagged strings are sometimes treated differently that non-languaged-tagged strings, so that there will probably be cases where it is necessary to refer to "literals that are not language-tagged strings". The phrase is terrible and could be given a shorter name. If the RDF WG does not define a name for this, another WG may do it (cf. the notion of "simple literal" in SPARQL). A proposal: "typed literals". This will avoid countless confusions of people who are learning RDF with older tutorials and publications. Plus, they *are* typed literals in the sense that they *do* have a formal datatype (as opposed to "No datatype is formally defined for [rdf:langString]").
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:23:37 UTC