W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Last call comments from the I18N WG on RDF WDs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:30:59 -0600
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <1068679859.13401.408.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

> Dear RDF WG,
>
> Here are the last call comments from the I18N WG on
> the RDF drafts. This is not necessarily by draft, but
> by feature.

Thanks for the careful review. The RDF Core Working
Group noted several of these points in its 7 Nov
teleconference. (The others are left for the editors
to address).

In brief: In one case, we decided to add an issue
and postpone it. In other cases, we found that the
issues here have been considered in making earlier
decisions, and we did not reopen them. While I don't
expect this addresses your comments to your satisfaction,
perhaps the time for exploring design alternatives
for this version of RDF has come to an end. We
look forward to discussing this with you and The Director.

Some details follow...

> - Treatment of language information for XML Literals:
>   We have already commented on this extensively. We think that the
>   removal of language information from XML literals is a serious
>   problem for internationalization. Details of our comments can
>   be found at http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html.
>
>   One example of how language information could easily be added to
>   XML literals, with minimal impact on the overall design,
>   (just a proposal, not intended to preclude any other solution)

Yes, we have explored designs along these lines but decided
(9 May 2003) on a different design.

We have updated our issues list to elaborate on the
various alternatives and the reasons we didn't choose
designs like this.
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
1.217  2003/11/12 22:58:21


> - XML Literals as typed literals: We have not objected to the treatment
>    of XML Literals as typed literals in the previous last call, because
>    there, it was possible to understand this treatment just as a technical
>    convenience. However, with the change to the treatment of language
>    information for XML literals, treating XML literals as datatyped literals
>    becomes highly questionable. Unless the language information issue can
>    be solved, we have to disagree with this treatment.

Yes, we were aware of these questions when we made the 9 May decision.

> - XML Literals containing only text should be equivalent to the
>    corresponding plain literals and to the corresponding string type
>    literals. (Solving the language information issue for XML Literals
>    seems to be a precondition for this, but once this is done, it does
>    not seem to be too difficult, in the same way that it was possible
>    to make strings and plain literals equivalent.)

The working group decided that this issue a new issue,
but to postpone it:

[[[
add a new issue to the issue list:
"relationship between XMLLiterals and plain literals," and postpone it.

Rationale:

The lack of semantic equivalence between XMLLiterals and plain
literals has been clear since the first WD of RDF Concepts, and
was arguable in RDF Model and Syntax.

The RDF Semantics does not preclude RDF applications using additional
information to determine that two literals are equivalent, but does not
mandate that they should be.

Hence, RDF applciations which require this equivalence may operate
in such a mode, and so this issue is not a show stopper.
]]
 -- Minutes, 2003-11-07 (in progress)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0063.html




- Examples/Primer: There is one important facility of RDF that is almost
[...]

I'm leaving that point for the primer editor(s) to address.


> - Alt container: Because of the special rule that the first element is
>    the default or preferred value, this is a fake alternative. This should
>    be changed, or a real alternative, without any preferences, should be
>    provided.

Yes, we are aware that "The design of the RDF Model collection
classes exhibit various awkward features."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches

We resolved, 15th February 2002, to postpone full treatment of that
issue to a future working group. Perhaps that's sufficiently
responsive to your comment at this point?

> - Measures/weights: The primer in a very small number of instances
>   uses 'weightInKg', and explains why, but for the rest, it always
>   uses just 'weight', even when there is no reason for such an
>   underspecified property.

I'm leaving that point for the primer editor(s) to address.


> - The motivation for using xsd datatypes should clearly say that these
>   are well established and should be used where appropriate.

I'm leaving that for the primer or concepts editor(s) to address.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:31:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT