- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:16:59 -0400
- To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, evren@clarkparsia.com
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs > Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:28:50 -0500 > >> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider >> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >>> I'm not sure what part of the documents you are basing this behaviour >>> on. As far as I can see our documents leave it completely up to >>> implementations as to how they are to implement the relationship between >>> rdf:text literals and plain literals, and this is how it should be. >> >> In this message from Sandro he asserts that it was a requirement of HP >> for moving to last call that rdf:text literals do not "escape" into >> RDF. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0077.html >> >> -Alan > > Sure, but why should this affect any document except the rdf:text > document? Our relevant documents defer to rdf:text, which is only > appropriate. > > peter > My reasoning is that the RDF mapping is a very precise document and doesn't address this aspect of the translation, whereas it seems to be in scope. It looked to me like there could be confusion that on the one hand the RDF mapping seems to say literals are untouched in translation and on the other hand there is advise in a citation that indicates otherwise. Someone who will implement a translation will, I expect, be looking at the RDF mapping document closely and miss this, having consequence for users who are not expecting their string literals to change in this way. -Alan
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 21:17:54 UTC