You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 15, 2020. It is now read-only.
If there is a solution that is transparent to intermediate systems storing and publishing RDF, then roll-out is going to be smoother.
A non-syntax-change way to have more information about literals is in the style of SKOS-XL: encode the information in triples. This is mentioned in w3c/EasierRDF#22.
Vocabularies are the "extension" mechanism for RDF. Processors at each end need to understand such vocabularies but intermediate storage and RDF syntax does not.
There is value in having a standard for dir-literal which would cover a defined way to treat RDF 1.1 rdf:langString in this new vocabulary, and a reverse mapping giving a view in language tags of the richer literal description.
Syntax extensions can evolve to make these compound literals more readable.
The advantage is that it is not a required-everywhere change to RDF, or any syntax of RDF, and data can be carried across any RDF system without every system being changed.
The disadvantage is that it is "yet-more triples" and what were literals become blank nodes/IRIs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@afs just to make it clear to the non-rdf reader, what you propose is to define two predicates (probably in the RDF namespace) and directly encode the 'localizable string' structure:
If there is a solution that is transparent to intermediate systems storing and publishing RDF, then roll-out is going to be smoother.
A non-syntax-change way to have more information about literals is in the style of SKOS-XL: encode the information in triples. This is mentioned in w3c/EasierRDF#22.
Vocabularies are the "extension" mechanism for RDF. Processors at each end need to understand such vocabularies but intermediate storage and RDF syntax does not.
There is value in having a standard for dir-literal which would cover a defined way to treat RDF 1.1
rdf:langString
in this new vocabulary, and a reverse mapping giving a view in language tags of the richer literal description.Syntax extensions can evolve to make these compound literals more readable.
The advantage is that it is not a required-everywhere change to RDF, or any syntax of RDF, and data can be carried across any RDF system without every system being changed.
The disadvantage is that it is "yet-more triples" and what were literals become blank nodes/IRIs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: