- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:01:55 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Jeremy: >> Option 1: >> XMLLiteral ceases to be a typed literal but we revert to the old >> treatment where it was simply a special. > > >Patrick: >> 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: >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/ > >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 >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0092.html >linking to >http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html#xtocid103643 > >and > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0165.html > >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. But... > >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. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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