- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:13:07 +0000
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
I've messed with the definition of literals in order to address the concern raised here: ISSUE-94: Definition of literals does not include language-tagged strings properly http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/94 The new definition is this: [[ A literal in an RDF graph consists of two or three elements: • [lexical form] • [datatype IRI] A literal is a language-tagged string if and only if its datatype IRI is http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString, and only in this case the third element is present: • [language tag] ]] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#dfn-literal For the record, this was the old (equivalent) definition: [[ A literal in an RDF graph consists of: • [lexical form] • [datatype IRI] A language-tagged string is any literal whose datatype IRI is equal to http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString. In addition tolexical form and datatype IRI, a language-tagged string also has: • [language tag] ]] PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-94 as addressed in the latest version of http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#dfn-literal
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 20:13:30 UTC