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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:07:50 -0500
Cc: <ivan@w3.org>, <axel.polleres@deri.org>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, <sandro@w3.org>, <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>, <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <cawelty@gmail.com>, <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <F87A8E39-7C4D-487A-A540-B5343BC507A8@ihmc.us>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On May 23, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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.  

True.

> 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.

Um... see below. 

> 
> Other normative documents would probably have to be changed, including
> the mapping to RDF, the RDF-based semantics, and profiles.
> 
> 
> 
> There would be an effect on OWL 2 implementations.  Each implementation
> would have to handle this new form for strings.

The intention (well, MY intention :-) was that there would be no change at all to the actual surface form of any RDF interchange syntax: plain literals, with or without lang tags, would be written exactly as they are now. They would just be *considered* to have the datatypes xsd:string and rdf:LTL respectively. So the actual design for strings, for most code for most purposes, would not change at all. The use of rdf:LTL as a class name is an extension to RDF (and SPARQL), providing new functionality which was not previously available, but it is not a change to the string syntax.

Pat

> 
> 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.   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
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 24 May 2011 01:08:24 GMT

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