- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:50:31 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Jun 20, 2011, at 08:37, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 15/06/11 17:39, David Wood wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The RDF working group resolved our ISSUE-12 [1] today, which is intended to "reconcile various forms of string literals". >> >> We resolved to accept the proposal at: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain >> with the modification that preferred output form (SHOULD) is "foo" not "foo" ^^xsd:string in RDF; and we recommend that SPARQL and other WGs do the same. >> >> Discussion highlighted several possible areas of concern, which we believe the current proposal addresses. Specifically, it was noted that: >> >> - The forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string are equivalent input syntaxes. >> - The form "foo" is the preferred output syntax. >> - The WG suggests retaining the term "plain literal" in documents to avoid unnecessary rework. Such plain literals would be considered semantically equivalent to xsd:strings. > > This would be good but it is not mentioned in the resolution by RDF-WG. I think that was my fault in recording the decision. The intention was at the time (and remains) to retain the term "plain literal" in the documents if possible. Regards, Dave > > SPARQL 1.0 uses "simple literals" for plain literals with language tag. > > They are used also for the lexical form of a literals itself and for the text of language tags. > > Andy > >> >> NB: This resolution makes *no statement* about language-tagged literals (e.g. "foo"@en). >> >> We invite discussion regarding the ramifications of this resolution to other working groups and implementors. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 17:51:00 UTC