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

Re: Action-48 text: a New Plan for plain literals

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:41:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4DDA7204.40500@insa-lyon.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 23/05/2011 16:24, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> There would be an effect on the OWL 2 specs.  At the very least,
> rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral would have to be added to the reserved
> vocabulary.

 From the OWL 2 SS&FS:


"""IRIs with prefixes rdf:, rdfs:, xsd:, and owl: constitute the 
reserved vocabulary of OWL 2."""


so, no, we don't need to add rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral to the reserved 
vocabulary since it is already in.


Sections 4.3 and 5.7 of the structural spec should be
> rewritten.  I expect that other parts of this document would have to be
> changed to reflect the new kind of lexical space.
>
> Other normative documents would probably have to be changed, including
> the mapping to RDF, the RDF-based semantics, and profiles.

If "foo"@en is declared as syntactic sugar in *all* concrete syntaxes, 
then the mapping will certainly "look" the same, although abstractly 
different, right?

> There would be an effect on OWL 2 implementations.  Each implementation
> would have to handle this new form for strings.

But that form of string will be forbidden to appear in concrete 
syntaxes, so would it cause real problems?

>
> Getting approval from the OWL WG for changes might be very difficult, as
> there was much debate on rdf:PlainLiteral.  I don't see any benefits of
> rdf:LanguagedTaggedString over rdf:PlainLiteral.

rdf:LanguagedTaggedString is not a replacement for rdf:PlainLiteral, 
it's a complement.


AZ.


    I expect that
> approval would be contingent on approval from the OWL WG.
>
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Action-48 text: a New Plan for plain literals
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 03:18:00 -0500
>
>> Peter, Axel
>>
>> I believe the answer will be 'no', but I just want to check: would the
>> introduction of a new type, and the special nature of the
>> rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral, have any effect on the OWL 2 and RIF specs
>> from a functional point of view?
>>
>> Note that there is a plan to publish an edited recommendation for both
>> OWL 2 and RIF when the new version of the XSD spec is published as a
>> recommendation. At that point we can add a reference to
>> rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral to the RIF Datatypes[1] and the OWL 2
>> structural specification[2] documents (both documents explicitly list
>> the datatypes they handle). Hm... it may not be as simple if the XSD
>> spec comes out before the new RDF spec...
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
>>
>>
>> On May 23, 2011, at 05:01 , Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> The proposal outlined in the wiki here
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedLiteralDatatypeProposal
>>>
>>> completes Richard and my action item 48 from the last telecon.
>>>
>>> Pat
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 14:41:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT