W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: RDF-ISSUE-93 (non-langString): Give a name to "literals that are not language-tagged strings"

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:26:03 -0500
Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C07A666B-D217-4516-9EAF-782FEA8D945A@ihmc.us>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:23, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 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".
> Well, there might sometimes be cases where literals that are not of a numeric datatype need to be treated differently from anything else. That doesn't mean we should define a term for it.
> Why do you say "probably"? What are those cases?
>> 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).
> If another WG needs it, then they should define it. If it sounds useful, a future RDF WG can roll it back into RDF Concepts. We shouldn't add it unless we have a good bit of evidence that it's needed.
>> A proposal: "typed literals".
> Seriously?
>> 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]").
> The goal of the literal redesign was to have less exceptions and to streamline stuff. Because of that, all literals in RDF 1.1 now have a datatype IRI. Explaining why certain literals are not "typed literals" despite having a "datatype IRI" seems counter to that goal.
> I tend to call them "normal literals". "Normal literals, as opposed to language-tagged ones". Found that to be sufficient so far.
> Thinking about it, "untagged literals" would be reasonably accurate and short. I would still rather avoid that term if possible.

"tagless literals" ?


> Best,
> Richard

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 06:57:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:19 UTC