- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:45:39 +0000
- To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 07/03/11 17:26, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Le 07/03/2011 09:40, Andy Seaborne a écrit : >> rdf:PlainLiteral should never appear in RDF as a datatype. >> >> The literal should have been written in normal RDF form. >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ >> [[ Sec 4: >> Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype are >> considered by this specification to be not valid in syntaxes for RDF >> graphs or SPARQL. >> >> To implement this design and provide this interoperability, applications >> that employ this datatype MUST use plain literals (instead of >> rdf:PlainLiteral typed literals) whenever a syntax for plain literals is >> provided, such as in existing syntaxes for RDF graphs and SPARQL results. >> ]] >> > > Do we want to include this in RDF? The text? I suppose so because it's in a spec somewhere so we ought to consolidate. Best advice might be that parsers (input) are required to convert to plain literal form, so the rdf:PlainLiteral does not appear as a syntactic form. > RDF says: > > """Everything of the form "blabla"^^someURI can be the object of a > triple.""" > > If we include rdf:plainLiteral in the spec of RDF, we then say: > > """Everything of the form "blabla"^^someURI can be the object of a > triple *except* if someURI = rdf:plainLiteral.""" The only reason it starts "rdf:" as far as I can see is that RIF and OWL2 couldn't agree to put in one namespace or the other so they encroached on RDF. That's not a good reason. > Which sounds weird. Or maybe this is optional, just to be considered for > use with D-entailment? And explaining that "blabla"^^rdf:plainLiteral is an illegal PlainLiteral, that a string (lexicial form) has to have a @ in it but it does not form part of the string (value) isn't weird?!! Andy
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 20:46:15 UTC