Re: Rethinking how literals are defined

On 18/11/13 14:38, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> One more thing :-)
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:33 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> --------------%<-----------------------
>> Literals are used for values such as strings, numbers, and dates.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> A literal is a language-tagged string if the third element is present.
>> Lexical representations of language tags MAY be converted to lower
>> case.
>> The value space of language tags is always in lower case.
>
> A literal is a *typed value* if its datatype IRI does not equal
> rdf:langString.

?? It's always typed in RDF 1.1

I think it's clearer if we say that literals always have a datatype.


>
>
> This would make it much easier to talk about "literals which are not
> language-tagged strings".

Previous email:
>  - if and only if the datatype IRI is rdf:langString, optionally a
>    non-empty language tag as defined by [BCP47]. The language tag MUST be
>    well-formed according to section 2.2.9 of [BCP47].

If it has a datatype of rdf:langString then it must have a language tag.

We ought to be clear about:

"foo"^^rdf:langString

so implementations are consistent.  SPARQL returns "" for a 
non-langtagged literal, (c.f. xml:lang="")

	Andy

>



>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 18:36:02 UTC