W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: review of rdf:text, dated 2008-11-04

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:31:25 +0000
Message-Id: <DA1D958C-237D-46FE-844D-69B9029EBC50@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>

On 6 Nov 2008, at 12:14, Jos de Bruijn wrote:

> I reviewed the current draft of the rdf:text specification [1].
> I subdivided my comments into criticism on the content, criticism  
> on the
> structure, errors in the document, and editorial issues.
>
> Criticism on the content
> ====
> - to assure maximum compatibility with current and future versions of
> XML schema datatypes, the string parts of both the lexical and value
> space should be based on the respective spaces of the XML schema
> datatype string.
> - the set of characters is finite, and thus it cannot be assumed  
> that it
> is infinite. The problem that some OWL 2 implementations might have  
> some
> issue with the finiteness of this set is of no concern to this  
> datatype
> per se. In fact, the XML schema string datatype is based on a  
> finite set
> of characters, and so OWL 2 implementations will run into problems  
> with
> this datatype.
> If there is really a problem to be expected with implementations of  
> OWL
> 2, it should be dealt with in the OWL 2 specification, and not the
> specification of this datatype.

I think you are not quite grasping the issue here. (I do prefer  
finite alphabets myself, fwiw.) The point is how to design the type  
so that it is extensible to additional characters that will  
definitely be added (by unicode). Note that problems along these  
lines have already occurred in XML land. I don't think we can  
*merely* punt on this.

(And the problem is that future changes will change the meaning of  
some ontologies. I presume that this will be true for some RIF  
rulesets if you have the appropriate facets and builtins.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 12:28:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT