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

Re: getting to Last Call on rdf:text

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:03:25 +0100
Message-ID: <49CB8B2D.4030209@inf.unibz.it>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-text@w3.org, team-rif-chairs@w3.org, team-owl-chairs@w3.org


Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> Note 6.
>>> Editor's Note: Open Issues: The inclusion of text-length, as well as
>>> the definition of the function - whether the length of an rdf:text
>>> value should concern only the string part - are still under
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> As this impinges on the namespace that is controlled by the XQuery WG
>>> I suggest that we either ask them to define them or drop them.
>>>
>> I agree to drop this note from rdf:text.
> 
> Hi Jie,
> The issue wasn't so much the note, but the actual definition of the functions
> fn:text-length
> fn:matches-language-range

I agree that these two particular functions should be dropped, but for a
different reason: they are redundant.  Their functionality can be
achieved by extracting the relevant components from the rdf:text literal
and then doing string comparison.

> These are functions that it appears the rdf:text spec defines, but
> they are defined in the namespace that XQuery controls. So my

actually, strictly speaking the functions in the current version of the
specification are not in any namespace, because the document does not
define what "fn:" stands for.

> suggestion was either to coordinate with them, or to remove the
> definitions of these functions.

This is actually a problem for all functions in section 4, not just the
functions in section 4.3.
I agree that we cannot just reuse the F&O namespace without coordinating
with XPath/XQuery.  I also do not really see any other namespace that
would be suitable for these functions.
So it is probably best to remove section 4, unless some last-minute
coordination action is going to get underway (which I anyway doubt would
be successful).

Best, Jos

> 
> -Alan
> 
>> Jie
>>
>>> -Alan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> At the request of OWL-WG, RIF-WG just looked at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec with an eye
>>>> to making a LC decision, but the draft is clearly not ready.  It has six
>>>> editor's notes in it.
>>>>
>>>> Let's talk about those as necessary on this list, ASAP, to figure out
>>>> how to get rid of them, and make any other necessary changes.
>>>>
>>>>     -- Sandro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jie Bao
>> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
>>
> 

-- 
+43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Many would be cowards if they had courage
enough.
  - Thomas Fuller
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 14:04:30 UTC

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