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

Re: abbreviations of string literals

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:01:28 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0905271201m60387db2q650d27a28316fe58@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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

I think it can be addressed by

a) Saying the "abc" only abbreviates "abc"^^rdf:PlainLiteral in the
syntax document. If you want xsd:text you need to use
"abc"^^xsd:string
and
b) In the mapping document making explicit that plain literals in RDF
correspond to rdf:PlainLiteral literals in the structural
specification.

Does this work? Is there a better way?

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 19:02:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC