W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:35:53 +0100
Message-Id: <A3EF7E68-FA8C-4EF8-B333-22328410875B@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
2009Sep/0015.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

An RDF plain literal is not the same thing as a typed literal whose  
type is rdf:PlainLiteral. For example, "Family Guy"@en is a plain  
literal with a language tag, whereas "Family  
Guy@en"^^rdf:PlainLiteral is a typed literal whose type is  
rdf:PlainLiteral. In both cases the interpretation is the pair <  
"Family Guy" , "en" >. This distinction is necessary for backwards  
compatibility with RDF.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- 
comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your  
acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied  
with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group


Daniel Barclay wrote:
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Dear Daniel,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment
> >      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Sep/0007.html>
> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> >
> > The current formulation is correct, since "abc@" and  
> "abc@langTag" are valid
> > lexical forms of the rdf:PlainLiteral datatype. Please refer to the
> > "rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals" specification
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rdf-plain-literal-20090611/) for  
> more information
> > and examples.
>
> The third-to-last paragraph of section 2 of that document says:
>
>
>      A plain literal is a string with an optional language tag [RDF].
>      A plain literal without a language tag is interpreted in an RDF
>      interpretation by itself.  A plain literal with a language tag
>      can be written as "abc"@langTag, and is interpreted in an RDF
>      interpretation as a pair < "abc" , "langTag" >.
>
> But then the third paragraph of section 3 says:
>
>     Lexical Space. An rdf:PlainLiteral lexical form is a string of
>     the form "abc@langTag" where "abc" is an arbitrary (possibly
>     empty) string, and "langTag" is either the empty string or
>     a (not necessarily lowercase) language tag. ...
>
> Why does the first have the at sign ("@") outside the quotes, but
> the second has it inside?
>
> Does the rdf:plainLiteral specification use the phrase "written as"
> or the term "lexical form" in some strange sense?  (Normally, the
> lexical form of something is the form in which it can be written.)
>
> Daniel
>
>
> > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- 
> comments@w3.org>
> > (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment  
> please let us
> > know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's  
> response to your
> > comment.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Boris Motik
> > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
> >
> >
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 09:36:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 September 2009 09:36:10 GMT