W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-text@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: simple fix

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:07:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4A15D09B.1000405@deri.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Can't we just say, as strongly as we need to, that rdf:text is NOT for
> use in RDF?  Instead it is for use in *non-RDF* systems which use XML
> datatypes and want interoperability with RDF's language-tagged literals?
> 
> I know that hasn't been made very clear, to date.   New title:
> 
>   rdf:text -- an equivalent to RDF Plain Literals for non-RDF systems
> 
> We can be more precise about this in the body -- I like Dave Reynold's
> description of how RIF is not an RDF system, but is still compatible --
> but mostly this just seems like a PR problem.
> 
> I think there's also an open question of whether to allow empty language
> tags, and whether RDF plain literals without language tags should be
> mapped to xs:strings instead of rdf:text, but I bet we can solve those a
> lot more easily after we're clear about rdf:text's place in the world.
> 
>        -- Sandro

All,

I am personally fine with this and/or Andy's suggested wording:
Maybe doing both the title change and adding the respective paragraph is 
no harm...

One last proposal (if you think changing this is at all feasible):

Wouldn't it make things MUCH clearer than if we change the name to the 
datatype to just

    rdf:PlainLiteral

I have the feeling that with that name the intention is much clearer 
than rdf:text and somewhat it even "hints" why it is not a good idea to 
use it in RDF systems, since in RDF systems there is already a unique 
standard syntax  for plain literals.

E.g. (modifying Andy's proposed text accordinglt:)
"""
Systems that employ SPARQL with entailment regimes that cover 
D-entailment of rdf:PlainLiteral, MUST expose their results in the RDF 
forms.  This condition is met when the scoping graph contains literals 
in the RDF forms plain literals and xsd:string and does not mention 
rdf:PlainLiteral as a datatype.
"""

Opinions?

One thing I am not sure still: It was pointed out that we cannot prevent 
people from writing graphs using rdf:text as a datatype explicitly.
Is that a problem?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:08:11 GMT