Re: ISSUE-158: Request to review change

On 10/31/16 4:15 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>
> On 1/11/2016 1:55, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> I think this is ok - "ill-typed literal" is also used in other
>> standards (search "ill-typed literal site:w3.org").
>>
>> This checks the ^^xsd:X literals. sh:nodeKind checks for IRI, bnode,
>> or literal. There's one more type in RDF 1.1 [1] which is the
>> "language-tagged string". We have sh:uniqueLang and sh:languageIn, but
>> is there also a need to check that a literal is language-tagged?
>
> Being language-tagged is already checked via sh:datatype rdf:langString.
> So I think that's handled OK.

OK, but the terminology entry for "datatype" cites RDF 1.1 concepts, and 
rdf:langString doesn't appear in that document. It is defined in RDF 
Schema 1.1, though.[1] Does that mean it should be listed specifically 
with RDFS as its reference?

kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/#ch_langstring

>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>>
>> kc
>> [1]
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#section-Graph-Literal
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/16 10:06 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> I have made an edit to implement the resolution to ISSUE-158:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/77fd283597db8a5897a1d6ee2d53a50024a7c6d7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could the WG please review that these changes are correct and specific
>>> enough? The RDF spec uses the term "ill-typed literal". I don't know how
>>> to define "the datatypes supported by SPARQL 1.1", and suspect we will
>>> get questions on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 01:25:38 UTC