RE: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?

Hello,

If OWL and RIF need to do any kind of rewriting, this is the business of OWL and
RIF, not of rdf:text. Therefore, I don't think we need to discuss that in the
rdf:text document.

(OWL already contains this requirement; see the section on Literals in the
Syntax document.)

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 May 2009 06:20
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text
> --> Could you please check it one more time?
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> > STR("Hello@"^^xs:string)= STR("Hello@"^^rdf:text) = "Hello@"
> > STR("Hello@en")=
> > STR("Hello@en"^^rdf:text)=
> > STR("Hello@en"^^xs:string)= "Hello"@en"
>                      you mean "Hello@en" I assume
> 
> ...
> 
> > As a consequence, I believe that the LC comment of the SPARQL WG
> > should be addressed by simply removing any mention of literal
> > replacement during graph exchange. This makes it clear that rdf:text
> > is just another, regular datatype that is in no way different from the
> > other XML Schema or user-defined datatypes.
> 
> Hmmmm.   Okay, this approach might make sense, yeah.
> 
> I'd think we should at least include a practical, non-normative warning
> that rdf:text is not usuable as a general-purpose replacement for RDF
> plain literals, because RDF systems in general do not implement rdf:text
> D-entailment.
> 
> But more than that, in practice, RIF and OWL systems are going to need
> to rewrite rdf:text terms into plain literals during output, I think, so
> ... don't we need to say that somewhere?
> 
>      -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 07:03:02 UTC