- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:17:24 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To avoid minimal disruption I have _added_ this alternative to the end of the list. This means that the votes that have been already cast do not become invalid, just incomplete. It is now '2d', and I left Pat's variant in the list. Ivan On Sep 8, 2011, at 09:56 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Pat, > > On 7 Sep 2011, at 06:10, Pat Hayes wrote: >> 2. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There are various ways to "fix" the spec to make this possible: >> >> 2c. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat. (Pain: overly elaborate; the idea of an empty datatype is confusing, and having an L2V map which does not specify the actual value is even more confusing :-).)(Positive: the illegality of literals of the form "string"^^rdf:TaggedLiteral falls out automatically.) > > Is this supposed to be my proposal? If so, then you badly mangled it. This should read: > > [[ > 2c. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. > ]] > > This is *not* more elaborate than 2a or 2b and this *does* meet the definition of datatype. > > This makes the votes submitted so far kind of moot. > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> 3. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a welldefined L2V mapping. Again there are several (well, two) options based on this idea. >> >> 3a. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:taggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal. (Pain: inventing this open-ended naming convention.) >> 3b. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all. (Pain: overly elaborate; potentially confusing; need to define a new notion of sub-datatype.) >> >> 4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@' (just as in the rdf:PlainLIteral spec). This is a conventional datatype (it is rdf:PlainLiteral restricted to nonempty tags) with a conventional L2V mapping. (Pain: might be considered to be the wrong lexical form (??)) (Positive: conforms closely to existing specs; simple; extra tag information might be useful?) >> >> ------ >> >> On balance, my own vote is for either 2b or 4, and the longer I think about it, the better 4 looks after all. If we choose one of the 2 family, I would plead editorial discretion to be allowed to choose among them depending on which one fits best with the semantics, when we get down to details. They differ only in theoretical issues. Well, OK, I give up on 2a. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 08:17:37 UTC