- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:15:21 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Thanks Ivan. I have reused/adapted the corresponding section in owl2, and adapted it to our situation. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#conformance-to-rdf-datatypes Is it fair to keep the sentence " Both the PROV Working Group and the RDF Working Group are confident that there will be only minor changes before it becomes a W3C Recommendation."? We could simply drop it. Thanks, Luc On 06/28/2012 10:20 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Looking at some of the relevant entries in the minutes: > > ---- > Reza B'Far: Isn't RDF 1.1 going to be backwards compatible to 1.0? ← > > Not entirely. In RDF 1.1 > > - some datatypes (e.g., rdf:XMLLiteral) will be flagged as not required. Which does not mean that it is deprecated (I do not think any datatype will be deprecated) just that systems may decide not to implement it > - some datatypes are added (both from the new version of XSD, as well as rdf:HTML) > - some structural changes also happened; plain literals are no more, in the sense that all literals will have a datatype and plain literals (in the different syntaxes) will become just syntactic sugar for xsd:string > > ---- > Reza B'Far: I prefer static dependencies over dynamic dependencies, but if Ivan says we can't do that, then it is what it is. ← > > I am not sure how to interpret this question. What I meant is that all explicit *normative* references in the document must refer to stable recs, and not to working drafts. > > So if a specific reference is needed, then, with all the timing, I guess we have no other choice than to refer to RDF 1.0. The text itself may be very vague, still, and it a good idea to have removed the table; and there could be a note in the text referring to the fact that there is an RDF 1.1 coming, that datatypes may change, and we may expect PROV implementations to change in future accordingly. > > Changing the formal reference from RDF 1.0 to RDF 1.1 is indeed touchy... > > The OWL 2 WG faced a similar issue v.a.v. XSD 1.1. So there was an *informal* reference to XSD 1.1 and its datatypes; the WG was kept alive, though dormant for 2 years, and then was waken up (a few weeks ago) and they will issue an edited recommendation to change the references and also fold in errata. This may well be the plan for this WG, mainly if some other references/dependencies on RDF 1.1 creep in (eg, on named graphs!) > > I hope this helps > > Ivan > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:46 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > >> PROV-ISSUE-436 (prov-datatypes): adopting data types from a given version of rdf >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/436 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: >> >> >> Hi Ivan, >> >> At the F2F meeting, we discussed the data types to be supported by PROV. >> >> The WG decided decided to adopt RDF datatypes and to drop the informative table of types that was in a previous version. >> >> However, there is a group resolution [1], strongly supported by the implementers, that we should adopt a *given* version of rdf. >> >> Could you advise us on how to address this? Which version should we go for? How should we adapt the text? >> >> Details appear in section 5.7.3 [2]. >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22#resolution_7 >> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-value >> >> >> >> > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > > > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 10:15:50 UTC