Re: handling rdf:langString according to previous WG discussion and consistently between Concepts and Semantics from Andy Seaborne on 2013-02-27 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from February 2013)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:06:49 +0000
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <512E8379.4060201@epimorphics.com>

>   Note:  There may be other datatypes, like rdf:PlainLIteral, whose value
>   space has a non-empty intersection with the value space of rdf:langString.)

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals

rdf:PlainLiteral should not be in the RDF data because a syntax for 
plain literals (as was) is always provided.

(but occurrences in the wild in RDF data have been spotted)

>
>   [Why do this?  Well, there is nothing currently preventing one from defining
>   a useful (or malicious) datatype for rdf:langString.  I would actually prefer
>   doing this (the former, of course), using the L2V from rdf:PlainLiteral, but I
>   expect that this would not have much support in the WG.]

STRLEN !

	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:07:20 UTC