W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: keeping issue-12 simple

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:35:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4DE8B8FA.2040800@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 02/06/11 23:47, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> Your proposal below is different from mine.
>
> Sorry, it was intended to be simply an alternative way of phrasing
> the same proposal.
>
>> I want to make "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string result in one triple in
>> the abstract syntax.
>>
>> Your proposal keeps it as two triples.
>
> Actually, my text does not mention the abstract syntax, so is
> agnostic on this, but I am quite happy to have it interpreted your
> way. One triple in the abstract syntax, yes. Presumably of the form
> "foo"^^xsd:string (or, more exactly, the abstract syntax form of such
> a typed literal.)
>
>> You say: “ABC is considered to have type XYZ.” I think that phrase
>> is everything but helpful.
>
> Sorry :-)
>
>> Either XYZ is in the abstract syntax, or it is not. If it is not,
>> then where does it come from?
>
> From the specification that we write. We have complete control over
> this entire language, we can make it be any way we like. But if you
> want this to all be explicit in the abstract syntax, that is fine
> with me. So when I write "is considered to be XXX", read that as
> saying "is XXX in the abstract syntax."

and I was reading it that way - I read "considered" to be a recognition 
that it's not explicitly written in the concrete syntax.  In the case of 
strings, it's a datatype so by literal equality, they are the same.

+1 One triple.

>
> The current abstract syntax defines a simple tagged literal as
> *being* a pair of a string and a tag, and to be self-denoting. Which
> works out very nicely, if we are happy to have rdf:LTS be a
> datatype-that-works-on-pairs with the identity map as its L2V; or,
> alternatively, if we don't want any datatypes which work on anything
> but strings, then we can say that the abstract syntax form of these
> literals is (the abstract syntax form of) "string@tag"^^rdf:LTS.
> Personally I prefer the former, but I can live with the latter.

Same here, modulo the DATATYPE fudge if the latter.

RDF terms have one datatype - they can have many types.

	Andy

>
> Pat
>
>>
>> Best, Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2011, at 15:45, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> As we have been (re) considering a wide range of possible ways to
>>> handle language tags, I would like to reiterate how simple the
>>> earlier proposals which Richard outlined is. Allow me to rephrase
>>> it in alternative language which might emphasize its
>>> harmlessness.
>>>
>>> 1. We retain the current surface syntax for plain literals with
>>> and without language tags. Nothing in RDF/XML or TURTLE or
>>> N-triples or any other actually used syntax for RDF changes in
>>> any way.
>>>
>>> 2. Every literal has a type, which is a class name for the class
>>> of possible values of all literals with that type. The type of a
>>> datatyped literal is the datatype. Plain literals without
>>> language tags are considered to have the type xsd:string (as
>>> SPARQL currently assumes). Plain literals with language tags are
>>> considered to have a new type rdf:LangTaggedString (or something
>>> shorter, to be decided. I will use rdf:LTS for brevity). rdf:LTS
>>> is not, strictly speaking, a datatype, since its 'lexical space'
>>> is<string, tag>  pairs rather than strings. but it is remarkably
>>> similar to a datatype and nothing would break if you were to
>>> consider it a datatype, with the lexical space of strings formed
>>> as<string>@tag and the L2V mapping L2V("sss"@ttt) =<sss, ttt>
>>>
>>> 3. rdf:PlainLiteral is the superclass of xsd:string and rdf:LTS.
>>>
>>> 4. The only change to the current specs is to distinguish 'type'
>>> from 'datatype' and for clarity, maybe, change the terminology of
>>> 'typed literal' to 'datatyped literal'. But even that is not
>>> really necessary. All of this hassle comes from  our insisting
>>> that the syntax "foo"@baz must be a string paired with a tag, ie
>>> two syntactic items rather than one. If we simply say that it
>>> represents the string "foo@baz", which encodes a string and a tag
>>> and is to be used in a special way determined by the datatype
>>> rdf:LTS, a way that follows the existing rdf:PlainLIteral but is
>>> restricted to the tagged case,  then every type is a datatype and
>>> everything works smoothly, and we can stop discussing this
>>> INCREDIBLY TRIVIAL matter and move on to more important things.
>>> Ahem, sorry about the slight loss of control  there.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC
>>> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St.
>>> (850)202 4416   office Pensacola
>>> (850)202 4440   fax FL 32502
>>> (850)291 0667   mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
>>> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC
> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St.
> (850)202 4416   office Pensacola                            (850)202
> 4440   fax FL 32502                              (850)291 0667
> mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 10:36:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT