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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-80 (rdf:PlainLiteral): Ask OWL and RIF WGs to update the rdf:PlainLiteral spec [RDF General]

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:55:14 +0000
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF95114F-3B51-4639-8EBC-7A8A2EF8FB69@cyganiak.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:58, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Are we really breaking backward compatibility that much?

The design and terminology of the rdf:PlainLiteral spec make no sense at all when read with RDF 1.1 goggles. *I* don't have a problem with that. I don't think rdf:PlainLiteral made sense in the first place. But the OWL and RIF people might care that one of their documents no longer has any foundation in the RDF data model.

And I *do* slightly care that they're squatting in the RDF namespace. Why were they allowed to do that? This could be fixed as part of the update of the rdf:PlainLiteral document.

> Let's just
> include some "Historical Notes" in RDF 1.1 that explains what terms like
> "Plain Literal" meant, and how they should now be understood.  

Well, we currently have this:

[[
In earlier versions of RDF, literals with a language tag did not have a datatype IRI, and simple literals could appear directly in the abstract syntax. Simple literals and literals with a language tag were collectively known as plain literals.
]]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#dfn-plain-literal

I would rather not clutter the spec too much with “Historical Notes” that no one will care about five years down the road. The spec already had way too many notes in 2004, and the need to point out every change between 2004 and 1.1 doesn't help.

Best,
Richard



> Then, I
> think, existing systems will be fine.     (Or... perhaps I'm missing
> something.)
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:06 , RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> RDF-ISSUE-80 (rdf:PlainLiteral): Ask OWL and RIF WGs to update the rdf:PlainLiteral spec [RDF General]
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/80
>>> 
>>> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
>>> On product: RDF General
>>> 
>>> The ISSUE-12 and ISSUE-71 resolutions, which are now implemented in the RDF Concepts ED [1], have removed the distinction between plain and typed literals from the RDF abstract syntax.
>>> 
>>> This has a major effect on the rdf:PlainLiteral spec [2]. Parts of it are now obsolete, and the rest needs updating.
>>> 
>>> RDF-WG should ask OWL-WG and RIF-WG to update the document.
>>> 
>>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:55:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT