rdf:PlainLiteral and rdfs:Literal relation

[valexande]

[valexande]

Natalies Answer: The reply is do not change the mappings that are correct for v3.1.0 to which we are mapping. Future mappings to future versions of the ontology will be discussed when such mappings are necessary.

[VladimirAlexiev]

This comes from OP-TED/ePO#447.

@muricna: I don't think that "mappings are correct for v3.1.0": rdfs:Literal is too unspecific and doesn't mean "string".

[muricna]

@VladimirAlexiev: If my understanding is correct rdf:langString is a subclass of rdfs:Literal.

For the current mappings of the standard forms which can be in different languages we are mapping to v3.1.0 of the ontology.

Therefore if v3.1.0 of the ontology indicates a data type of rdfs:Literal, we can use rdfs:langString in our use case mentioned in the line above.

Do you agree with my understanding?

It is foreseen to implement rdf:PlainLiteral in v.4.0.0

[VladimirAlexiev]

Ok, there are 3 issues that ask for the same:

• rdf:PlainLiteral and rdfs:Literal relation #407
• change rdfs:Literal to rdf:PlainLiteral ePO#405
• use rdf:PlainLiteral instead of rdfs:Literal ePO#522

@muricna The hierarchy is like this: rdfs:Literal > rdf:PlainLiteral > (xsd:string, rdf:langString).
What a text field needs to be mapped to depends on its nature:

• xsd:string is appropriate for codes that are never translated to multiple langs
• rdf:langString is appropriate for texts that are always translated to multiple langs (if not now, then in the future): so a lang tag is required
• rdf:PlainLiteral is appropriate for texts that may but don't have to be translated, i.e. lang tag is not required.

https://github.com/OP-TED/ted-model2owl-docs/blob/main/modules/ROOT/pages/uml/conv-datatypes.adoc#technical-conventions-on-umldatatype-elements mentions this order of preference rdf:PlainLiteral, rdfs:Literal, xsd:string, rdf:langString but doesn't explain why.

@andreea-pasare, OP-TED/ePO#405 is not fixed, see comment there.

cc @valexande