Re: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Boris Motik wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> 
> Thank you for your comment
>      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0007.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> 
> The current formulation is correct, since "abc@" and "abc@langTag" are valid
> lexical forms of the rdf:PlainLiteral datatype. Please refer to the
> "rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals" specification
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rdf-plain-literal-20090611/) for more information
> and examples.

The third-to-last paragraph of section 2 of that document says:


     A plain literal is a string with an optional language tag [RDF].
     A plain literal without a language tag is interpreted in an RDF
     interpretation by itself.  A plain literal with a language tag
     can be written as "abc"@langTag, and is interpreted in an RDF
     interpretation as a pair < "abc" , "langTag" >.

But then the third paragraph of section 3 says:

    Lexical Space. An rdf:PlainLiteral lexical form is a string of
    the form "abc@langTag" where "abc" is an arbitrary (possibly
    empty) string, and "langTag" is either the empty string or
    a (not necessarily lowercase) language tag. ...

Why does the first have the at sign ("@") outside the quotes, but
the second has it inside?

Does the rdf:plainLiteral specification use the phrase "written as"
or the term "lexical form" in some strange sense?  (Normally, the
lexical form of something is the form in which it can be written.)

Daniel


> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org>
> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us
> know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your
> comment.
> 
> Regards,
> Boris Motik
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
> 
> 


-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]