W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: abbreviations of string literals

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:59:24 -0400
Message-ID: <20090527.125924.10282041.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: abbreviations of string literals
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:51:37 -0500

> In the Syntax document we have:
> 
> "Literals of the form "abc"^^xsd:string and "abc@"^^rdf:text should be
> abbreviated to "abc" whenever possible."
> 
> This seems to introduce a parsing ambiguity - when one encounters
> "abc" while parsing functional syntax, one doesn't know whether the
> structural specification should have a xsd:string literal or an
> rdf:text literal.

Hmm. 

> In addition, this affects understandability of the reverse mapping.
> As I understand it, although the function syntax is used in describing
> the transformation, it is as notation for the corresponding structure.
> The reverse mapping description
> 
> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> _:x owl:oneOf T(SEQ lt1 ... ltn) .
> { n ≥ 1 }	
> ->
> DataOneOf( lt1 ... ltn )
> 
> leaves literals unchanged in some sense. Suppose lt1 is a plain
> literal "abc". If we interpret this as an operation on structure, it
> can't be taken verbatim, as the structural specification only has
> typed literals. If we take this as a rewrite to functional syntax,
> then the expansion of "abc" is ambiguous, as described above.

Hmm.

This probably needs some attention.

> -Alan

peter
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 17:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 17:01:03 GMT