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

What I meant to say with this:

>> i.e. - it goes back to using SHOULD and not MUST.
> 
> Thaat sounds good to me (i.e. the most reasonable we can do at the moment)
> 
> Axel 

If the OWL documents have that text already, than either both rdf:text 
AND the OWL documents change uniformly to MUST NOT or both changes to 
SHOULD NOT (anything in between doesn't make sense, does it?)

With the second approach, that Boris posted, cf.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0080.html

it looks to me as if "SHOULD NOT" would be sufficient. Anyways, this is 
  a point we should settle in the planned TC.

As far as I understood, all except Steve indicated that tomorrow after 
RIF (i.e. 17:30 BST) could be possible.

Alan, since you were calling for the TC, is that fixed now?
Otherwise, I am afraid it is not possible before Friday.

Axel

Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 18 May 2009 14:35
>> To: Seaborne, Andy
>> Cc: Boris Motik; Sandro Hawke; 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?
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
>>>> Sent: 18 May 2009 08:02
>>>> To: 'Sandro Hawke'
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> 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.)
>>> The text being:
>>>
>>> Â  Â * Â Literals of the form "abc"^^xsd:string and "abc@"^^rdf:text
>> SHOULD be abbreviated to "abc" whenever possible.
>>> Â  Â * Literals of the form "abc@langTag"^^rdf:text where "langTag" is
>> not empty SHOULD be abbreviated to "abc"@langTag whenever possible.
>>>
>>> i.e. - it goes back to using SHOULD and not MUST.
>> Shouldn't this be a part of Mapping to RDF. As it stands now I think
>> it would erroneously instruct that rdf:text literals are written
>> without change.
> 
> I was unclear - I was pointing that in previous discussions, before rdf:text LC, we got to the point of using "MUST" text:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&oldid=18720#Abbreviations_of_rdf:text_and_xs:string_Literals
> 
> There is a small burden using "MUST" but the advantage is that it working between OWL and RDF.
 >
 > 	Andy

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 14:04:11 UTC