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

RE: Response to Andy Seaborne's comments on rdf:text

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:45:37 +0000
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Reynolds, Dave Everett" <dave.reynolds@hp.com>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3628D133DCF@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Jie Bao wrote:
> Dear Andy Seaborne.
> Thank you for your response. I incorporated them in the wiki-version
> of the rdf:text document. The version is at
> * http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&oldid=18720

We have reviewed the document with respect to the changes we suggested - thank you for incorporating them.

The use of "existing" in section 3 does not seem to add anything.
Indeed, any future serialization that has built-in language tagging
would presumable also use the usual RDF form.

As we are agreed on the intent of the abbreviation of rdf:text, we suggest that adding an explicit statement about the intent would be helpful: suggestion:

Sec 3.2:
The effect of these abbreviations is that there will be no occurrence of
an RDF literal with datatype "rdf:text" in RDF generated by an OWL 2 or RIF
processor. This maximises compatibility with RDF toolsets.

This would be especially helpful because in the RDF Syntax specification it says, referring to the rdf:namespace:


5.1 The RDF Namespace and Vocabulary
Any other names are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when
encountered, but should otherwise behave normally.


  Hewlett-Packard Limited
  Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
  Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 21:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:42 UTC