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

RE: Languageless Typed Literals

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:01:55 -0500
Message-Id: <p0521063fbadc7272e5c6@[]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>>  Option 1:
>>  XMLLiteral ceases to be a typed literal but we revert to the old
>>  treatment  where it was simply a special.
>>  My strong preference is then for option 1, reverting (in a sense)
>>  XML literals to the M&S definition.
>>  This has the additional benefit that lexical forms can be left
>>  as-is in the graph per the RDF/XML serialization and only need be
>>  canonicalized when testing for equality.
>>  Thus, plain and XML literals both may take lang tags and neither
>>  are typed literals nor fall within the scope of RDF datatyping.
>>  Typed literals do not take lang tags, period.
>>  This avoids all the headaches relating to the bizzare datatype
>>  rdf:XMLLiteral.
>>  Patrick
>The old treatment was in say:
>I think that the reagle issue resolutions would in the main stay, and the
>canonicalization would still be specified in the syntax, but with the
>implementation note that makes it clear that they "only **need** be
>canonicalized when testing for equality."
>I have three concerns about this option:
>a) we had comments
>linking to
>both of which would need resurrecting, since we have followed up saying that
>we have changed in the way they sort of wanted.
>b) how difficult would it be for Pat to go back and rework

Not very difficult.  I am ready for almost any decision we make, I 
think. I have the relevant changes scoped out for them all, and will 
do the edits once we decide.


>c) impact on OWL support for XML Literals - webont are generally negative
>about them, the more work they have to do, the less support there will be in
>OWL for these.

...right. BUt then, Webont are free to rule out this part of RDF from 
OWL, and take the resulting heat from their user community.

I think it would be easier for OWL if it were presented with XML 
literals as a distinct syntactic category, since that would enable 
them to deny equality substitution inside XML literals without 
compromising their semantics.

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 16:01:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC