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

On 6 Nov 2008, at 19:01, Jos de Bruijn wrote:

[snip]
>>> In general, I think that this datatype should be based on the XML  
>>> schema
>>> string datatype, and if there are problems with extensibility, they
>>> should be solved in XML schema.
>>
>> It *is* based on XML schema strings.
>
> No. The string parts of the lexical space and value space are  
> different.

Ooops. I was taking a looser view of "based".

>>>> (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.)
>>>
>>> We don't have such problems in RIF, because we don't allow built- 
>>> ins in
>>> rule head.
>>
>> I fail to see how that matters. You'll get different answers to  
>> builtins
>> so you'll have different rules firing merely depending on the  
>> admissible
>> characters.
>
> You're right, I forgot about this point. I was focusing too much about
> the example in the document.
> But, well, there will be future changes in several data types, so I
> guess we'll just have to live with that.

That's a choice. Another choice is the one Boris would like to make.  
There are trade offs to both approaches (including what I think of as  
rather severe implementation consequences of Boris's choice). I just  
want to make sure we argue the actual (de)merits :)

Cheers,
Bijan.