ISSUE-94: Definition of literals does not include language-tagged strings properly
literal-definition
Definition of literals does not include language-tagged strings properly
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDF Concepts
- Raised by:
- Antoine Zimmermann
- Opened on:
- 2012-08-22
- Description:
- The current definition of literal and langstring says, in substance:
a. Literals consists of 2 things.
b. Langstrings are literals that consists of 3 things.
It must be clear that literals can consist of 3 things as well, before refering on the definition inconsistently. Proposed rewording:
"""
A /literal/ has 2 components which are:
* a /lexical form/ being a Unicode [UNICODE] string, which should be in Normal Form C [NFC],
* a /datatype IRI/ being an IRI that establishes the literal value;
and MAY have a third component which is a non-empty /language tag/ as defined by [BCP47]. The language tag MUST be well-formed according to section 2.2.9 of [BCP47], and MUST be normalized to lowercase.
Literals with a language tag are called /language-tagged strings/ and their datatype IRI MUST be http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString.
""" - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- RE: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-11-14)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-11-14)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-11-14)
- RE: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-11-14)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-11-07)
- RE: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-11-07)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-11-07)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2012-11-07)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-11-06)
- Re: Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-11-06)
- Disimproved definition of literals in Concepts; close ISSUE-94? (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-11-06)
- RDF-ISSUE-94 (literal-definition): Definition of literals does not include language-tagged strings properly [RDF Concepts] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-08-22)
Related notes:
The original's submitter's concern has been resolved by a change to the definition, as documented here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0071.html
Display change log