Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5

Peter,

Thanks for going though this exercise with me. I found it to be very
helpful. Now when
I read what you have written it ought to be easier for me to figure
out what you mean.

Jonathan

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> Subject: Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:17:17 -0500
>
>> Thanks for working with me on this. Let me try once again:
>>
>> <interpretation>
>>
>> Because [syntactic] RDF plain literals are already a part of RDF and
>> SPARQL syntaxes [e.g. RDF/XML], rdf:PlainLiteral literal [values] are
>> written [by those who don't know about rdf:PlainLiteral syntax,
>> because they don't know about it, and by those who do, because they
>> are aware of this spec] as [syntactic] RDF plain literals in RDF and
>> SPARQL syntaxes [except when they're written using some other syntax,
>> such as xs:string].
>>
>> [RDF graphs will usually not contain typed literal nodes with datatype
>> RDF:PlainLiteral simply because the corresponding surface syntax won't
>> be used.]
>>
>> </interpretation>
>>
>> Does that do it? I'm not proposing to include the bracketed parts, but
>> I would like an interpretation of this sentence that you and I agree
>> on captured in the email archive.
>>
>> Best
>> Jonathan
>
> That is close enough.  The difficulty with the above wording is just
> exactly how to handle xsd:string, of course.  How and when does the
> "knowledge" of the xsd:string-iness affect the writing of a literal?  I
> was trying to be careful to indicate that only things that were going to
> be written as rdf:PlainLiteral typed literals would instead be written
> as plain literals, so that neither are all xsd:string typed literals
> caught in the "transform" not are xsd:string typed literals used as an
> alternate "transform".
>
> peter
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 21:46:40 UTC