- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:56:06 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I implemented the change on the Wiki. If anyone objects to the change please speak up. Cheers, Jos On 2010-03-04 18:30, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> So, do you propose to change (in Table 1): >> >> Constant in the xs:string symbol space "literal string"^^xs:string >> >> to: >> >> Constant in the rdf:PlainLiteral symbol space "literal >> string@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral >> >> ? > > Exactly. Also, a few lines down, there's a bullet: > > * Strings, i.e., constants of the form "my string"^^xs:string may be > written as "my string". > > which would be changed to: > > * Plain literals without language tags, i.e., constants of the form > "my string@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral may be written as "my string". > > Which makes me wonder what other specs, if any, that affects, and what > Hassan & Stella's code does. Basically, that affects the mapping from > Presentation Syntax to XML Syntax. > >> That would be fine for me. > > Good... > > -- Sandro > >> Cheers, Jos >> >> On 2010-03-04 14:11, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>> SWC doesn't map plain literals to anything. According to the RDF >>>> semantics, plain literals without language tags are always mapped to >>>> themselves, i.e., strings of unicode characters. Now, XSD specifies that >>>> xs:string literals are also mapped to themselves, and thus they >>>> correspond 1-to-1 to plain literals w/o language tags. >>>> Now, it happens to and be the case that the value space of >>>> rdf:PlainLiteral also includes all strings. Therefore, there is a >>>> one-to-one correspondence between RDF plain literals and xs:strings of >>>> the form "xyz", on the one hand, and rdf:PlainLiterals of the form >>>> "xyz@", on the other. >>> >>> I'm not talking about the value spaces or the semantics, just the >>> syntactic correspondence in Table 1. (In terms of the semantics, yes, I >>> agree with everything you say above.) >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>>> >>>> Best, Jos >>>> >>>> On 2010-03-02 20:06, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>>> During the telecon today we looked at >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence >> _2 >>>>> >>>>> and it seems that while that example is supported by the SWC, SWC isn't >>>>> saying quite the right thing, here. It says plain literals without >>>>> language tags map to xs:string constants, but I think it would be better >>>>> to map to rdf:PlainLiteral constants. The difference is actually >>>>> invisible to any entailment test (I think? maybe it depends on the >>>>> entailment regime?), so in a sense RIF doesn't care, but for interchange >>>>> purposes is does matter. In particular, SPARQL, when not doing >>>>> entailment, will notice the difference. >>>>> >>>>> Do you remember why it's xs:string now? >>>>> >>>>> This isn't a huge problem, but if there's no compelling reason not to >>>>> change it, I think it's more correct to map to rdf:PlainLiterals. >>>>> >>>>> -- Sandro >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jos de Bruijn >>>> Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ >>>> LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn >>>> Skype: josdebruijn >>>> Google Talk: jos.debruijn@gmail.com >>>> Mobile phone: +43 660 313 5733 >> >> -- >> Jos de Bruijn >> Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ >> LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn >> Skype: josdebruijn >> Google Talk: jos.debruijn@gmail.com >> Mobile phone: +43 660 313 5733 -- Jos de Bruijn Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn Skype: josdebruijn Google Talk: jos.debruijn@gmail.com Mobile phone: +43 660 313 5733
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 07:56:47 UTC