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

RE: Languageless Typed Literals

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 17:09:29 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210608badde2843107@[10.0.100.9]>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

>Pat,
>
>Can we take that as support for Option 1?

Expression of personal opinion in favor of option 1, yes.  But I 
don't feel strongly about it, and a built-in datatype would be OK as 
long as it was in line with the other datatypes .

Pat

>
>Patrick
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
>>  Sent: 05 May, 2003 23:02
>>  To: Jeremy Carroll
>>  Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: RE: Languageless Typed Literals
>>
>>
>>  >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/2002JulS
>ep/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


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 6 May 2003 18:09:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:28 EDT