W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

"do nothing" proposal for plain literal/xsd:string (was: Re: SPARQL TC 2011-05-03 Agenda)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:50:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4DBFFA0B.7010309@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 5/2/2011 3:25 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> We need to decide what to do about simple literals / xsd:strings
>
> thread:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0095.html
>
> Nothing is a possibility but it needs to be an active decision, not a
> silent default. We then need to feed that back to RDF-WG.

I'd propose we do nothing.

We already have that datatype("foo") is xsd:string.

The other (more important) thing that comes up is BGP matching. BGP 
matching is defined via "subgraph", which does not seem to reference any 
formal definition from RDF concepts (please correct me if I'm wrong).

...Actually, in section 2 this is informatively (why?) defined as being 
based on "RDF graph equivalen[ce]".

It's my hope that when/if the RDF WG goes forward with this change, the 
changes made to RDF will be such that :s :p "foo" and :s :p 
"foo"^^xsd:string are "RDF graph equivalent", and therefore SPARQL will 
simply "inherit" that change.

Is this hope unreasonable?

Lee


>
> Andy
>
> On 02/05/11 15:28, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I will hopefully upload a formal agenda hopefully later today at the
>> usual place:
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-05-03
>>
>> but here is alrady what is planned for tomorrow:
>>
>> We shall go through all documents:
>>
>> 1) check with editors whether ready for LC publication
>> - any open issues on to_last_call wiki?
>> - any critical reviewer comments open?
>> - any critical comments-list comments open?
>> - pubrules check done?
>> 2) PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft
>> (we need a formal vote there, I assume for minor open issues, this can
>> also vary to)
>> PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft modulo ACTION-XYZ
>> (i.e. allow us to assign actions to reviewers/editors to resolve minor
>> issues bilaterally without the need for another formal group decision)
>>
>> If editors could answer to the subitems of 1) prior to the call
>> tomorrow, that might help us!
>>
>> best,
>> Axel
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 12:50:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT