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

Re: open concepts issues - proposals for xmlsch-05 and xsmlsch-06

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:08:52 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030514145842.01f78e98@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

This looks promising.  I have a couple of nits.

...

1.

>From
>"if E is a plain literal then I(E) = E"
>to
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#gddenot
>"if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E) = aaa"
>"if E is a plain literal "aaa"@ttt then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>"
>
>The textual gloss is:
>"Plain literals, without embedded datatypes, are always interpreted as
>referring to themselves: either a character string or a pair consisting of
>two character strings."

My suggestion for the above is to replace "referring to" with "denoting", 
particularly since you propose to use that term in the concepts 
document.  (Rationale:  "denoting" seems to have a fairly stable meaning 
when used in this context;  I don't know if this is so for referring, since 
the latter term seems to get us into the "what is a resource territory" .

...

2.

>PROPOSE to accept; with rewording (added 'not' and 'except for')
>
>[[
>A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language
>         identifier. This should not be used except for plain text
>         in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics
>         [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting.
>]]

I'm not sure what this is intended to mean.  It reads as if to say that all 
plain literals should be used only for plain text in a natural language, 
which I don't think is right (e.g. strings that are product serial numbers, 
or from vehicle licence plates, etc.).  I think you mean to say that 
*strings with language tags* should be used only for plain text in a 
natural language, which I think is better.  So I think the wording should 
be a little clearer:

[[
A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language
         identifier. The language identifier should not be used
         except with plain text in a natural language.
         As recommended in the RDF formal semantics
         [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting.
]]

BTW, have we agreed to use the term "language identifier", or are we 
following RFC 3066 [1] and using the term "language tag"?

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt

#g
--

At 13:14 14/05/03 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>The issue list
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
>
>shows 6 open concepts issues
>
>of which tex-01 xmlsch-01 xmlsch-02 were closed on Friday
>
>and
>
>I have made proposals on
>danc-02 goofy literals
>however they are now out of date given our literals decision.
>
>I will make a new proposal, but probably not in time for the telecon - it 
>will
>be:
><<<
>PROPOSE
>Accept danc-02.
>Our design of literals was a bit goofy, and we have changed it:
>[[
>**new text still to be written in light of typed literals decision**
>**sorry for not hurrying here, but I am trying to be very careful**
>]]
>Moreover, we believe some of the concern was to do with the denotation of
>literals in the domain of discourse. To avoid copying any goofiness in the
>abstract syntax into the domain of discourse,
>we have hence changed the following rule in rdf-mt:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#gddenot
>From
>"if E is a plain literal then I(E) = E"
>to
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#gddenot
>"if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E) = aaa"
>"if E is a plain literal "aaa"@ttt then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>"
>
>The textual gloss is:
>"Plain literals, without embedded datatypes, are always interpreted as
>referring to themselves: either a character string or a pair consisting of
>two character strings."
>
>The informative text in concepts:
>"As recommended in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain
>literals are self-denoting."
>is unchanged.
> >>>
>
>xmlsch-05
>character sequences
>[[
>Since "string" is used as the local name for a particular simple type
>     in the XML Schema namespace, we believe it will be less confusing for
>     users, in the long run, if the lexical representations of
>     simple-datatype values are described not as "strings" but as
>     "character sequences".
>]]
>
>PROPOSE: to not accept this comment.
>Rationale:
>It feels like a fairly extensive editorial change. Also in the semantic web
>activity documents xsd:string is always refered to in its qualified form, and
>so the possible confusion is diminsihed.
>
>
>xmlsch-06
>natural language data
>[[
>A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language
>         identifier. This should be used for plain text in a natural
>         language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics
>         [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting.
>]]
>
>The xmlsch wg rightly picked out a bug - I believe the intent of the should
>was to say that when you use this syntax then it should be for this purpose.
>They read it as when you want to achieve this purpose then you should use
>this syntax.
>
>PROPOSE to accept; with rewording (added 'not' and 'except for')
>
>[[
>A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language
>         identifier. This should not be used except for plain text
>         in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics
>         [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting.
>]]
>
>(Note this an informative "should not", not a normative "SHOULD NOT")
>
>Summary:
>6 issues shown open, 3 already closed, 2 proposals to close above, 1 proposal
>to close missing text to be crafted.
>
>
>
>Jeremy

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 17:02:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:30 EDT