- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:54:25 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On May 27, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 27/05/11 19:43, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> On 27 May 2011, at 11:33, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> Why not declare a class rdf:String that is the features we want and leave rdf:PlainLiteral, with all it's datatype features that are being used, alone? (make it a subclass). >> ... >>> A reasonable expectation of users (whether technically right or not - people have intuitions about strings) >>> >>> skos:prefLabel rdfs:range<datatype> >>> >>> is that they can write >>> >>> <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^<datatype> . >> >> Huh? >> >> You still can't say >> >> skos:prefLabel rdfs:range rdf:String . >> <s> skos:prefLabel "foo"^^rdf:String . >> >> unless you define a lexical space, and this would take us right back to the rdf:PlainLiteral "foo@en" mess. > > rdf:String isn't a datatype. It's a class only. > Only the base of the subclass hierarchies are datatypes: rdf:LangTaggedString and xsd:string > > But rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype already, which I see as odd. It *is* odd. BUt I would hope that with our final design in place, rdf:PlainLIteral would rapidly become an anachronism. Pat > >> Also, I don't like having both xsd:string and rdf:String with different meaning. > > What name would work for you? > My point about partial use of rdf:PlainLiteral still stands. >> >> Richard > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 20:55:07 UTC