W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: More issues

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:03:17 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301171356040.28405-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
> Peter has just sent a message to webont with a load of issues.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0275.html
>
> I am not sure whether these are new or not, but they seem to be wholly RDF
> rather than OWL issues.
> Some seem to be:
>   - places where he disagrees with what we have decided (either
> substantively or process wise)
>   - further anxieties about bugs in the semantics
>   - bugs in schema
>   - bugs in concepts
>
> I personally judge them to be largely editorial ...
>
> I guess the chairs need to get involved with a bit of cross-group
> coordination.

Peter's suggestion that the URIref be a part of the datatype definition
is one that makes a lot of sense. We've come close to this when
discussing "what about synonyms for rdf:XMLLiteral?" - in fact, we've
agreed on this repeatedly (as I recall) but it doesn't appear to have
made it into our documents. If Pat agrees then this seems like a
reasonably straightforward editorial fix.

I note that the language tag issue is still causing strife for webont;
the XMLLiteral special case keeps on coming up. This does not fall into
the realm of "typo fix" since we've decided otherwise (repeatedly), but
it seems the cleanest solutions to the issue are to adopt one of the
following two approaches:

1. Drop language tags. This, I think, is not going to fly.

2. Make language tag contents available to the L2V mapping for ALL
datatypes. That's not to say that a datatype needs to use the language
tag; it can ignore it (as many XSD types appear to do).

(2) has come up in telecons _at_least_ twice - I know I've heard Pat
sugest it and I initially thought (when creating the DT test cases) that
that was how it was intended to be (since it made the most sense to me).
I've not heard a technical reason why this _shouldn't_ be the case (just
cries of "no!" without explanation). There appear to be technical
reasons why this _should_ be the case (it'd straighted out the
distinction between XMLLiteral and the rest of the world).



-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Boycott Arabic numerals! What have they ever done for us?
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 09:04:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:22 EDT