Re: rdf-text telecon agenda

Thanks for the excellent enumeration of the solution space.  Up through
level five, it makes good sense to me.  Personally, I'm fine with levels
3 through 5.

I remain confused about level 6.  I don't understand what about the
current draft would make people change existing code, etc.

I understand the current draft to be "level 5.5" which is level 5 plus
some SPARQL-specific wording.  (I hope you'll forgive me for
re-purposing your numbers like this -- you numbered them as preferences,
but they seem to be nicely in order of increasing restrictiveness.)

     -- Sandro


> My first preference towards meeting the interoperability goal would be
> to say *nothing* about restricting rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF.
> There are already many ways to have datatyped literals in RDF (and its
> semantic extensions, such as RDF+owl:sameAs) whose value space has a
> non-trivial intersection with the "value space" of plain RDF literals.
> Given this, what use is it to prevent one more way?
> 
> My second preference would be to just change the OWL 2 mapping to RDF
> graphs document to map rdf:text datatyped literal into plain RDF
> literals.
> 
> My third and fourth preferences would be to say that applications (and
> recommendations) that incorporate rdf:text may/should be nice to older
> applications (and recommendatations) and therefore may/should not emit
> rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF syntaxes by changing them to plain
> literals.
> 
> My fifth preference would be to say that in *syntaxes* for RDF graphs,
> e.g., RDF/XML and Turtle, (and related syntaxes, such as any syntaxes
> for SPARQL basic graph patterns, I guess) the syntax for rdf:text
> datatyped literals *is* the syntax for plain RDF literals.
> 
> My last preference would be to make statements where complete compliance
> would require all RDF applications to change.  This is what the current
> document says.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Alcatel-Lucent

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 13:47:33 UTC