RE: editoral comments on rdf:text

Hello,

Thanks Sandro for this review. Please find my answers inline. Apart from the
changes indicated below, I've undertaken the following changes:

- I've changed the lexical space to include mixed case language tags and have
modified the lexical-to-value mapping to normalize language tag case to
lowercase.

- I've modified the rdf:langRange facet to use extended matching rather than
basic matching. My initial choice was guided by what we can support in OWL. It
may make sense, however, to define the rdf:text datatype in the most general way
and then to restrict this in OWL to what we can support there. (I've adapted the
relevant definition in the OWL 2 Syntax document.)

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 07 April 2009 02:42
> To: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: editoral comments on rdf:text
> 
> 
> Take or leave these as you will.
> 
> > 1  Introduction
> 
> FWIW, the introduction was fairly confusing and hard, unlike the rest of
> spec, which is great.  It reads more like an abstract, where I have to
> really know the subject to understand it.
> 
> My elevator pitch for rdf:text, and what I expected to see in the intro
> is: RDF has three types of literals (plain without language tag, plain
> with language tag, and typed), and sometimes when you're designing
> systems layered on RDF, this gives you three times the
> complexity. rdf:text lets you treat RDF as having just typed literals,
> so it's sometimes good for simplifying things.
> 
> (In retrospect, after all this, Boris, are you having second thoughts
> about using rdf:text at all in OWL 2?  :-)
> 
> I'd probably link to
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literals
> at the first mention of RDF literals.
> 

I've rewritten the introduction. Please let me know whether you find it better
now.

> > All typed RDF literals are interpreted as plain RDF literals,
> 
> This confused me a lot until I figured it out it meant "All literals
> of type rdf:text are interpreted..." or some such.
> 

This sentence was broken: I meant to say "All typed rdf:text literals are
interpreted as plain RDF literals, [...]".

> The last paragraph of the intro should probably be in an
> Acknowledgements section instead of the Intro.
> 

I've moved this to the acknowledgements section.

> I should note that I've always said "RDF plain literal" and "RDF typed
> literal", where this document says "plain RDF literal" and "typed RDF
> literal".  That struck me as odd, but I got used to it.  Since the RDF
> specs just call it "plain literal" and "typed literal", it's not much
> help.
> 

I've removed "RDF" from "RDF literal" throughout the document.

> > 2 Preliminaries
> 
> The link "Char" is http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#NT-Char
> I think you now mean http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-Char
> 

I've replaced the link.

> I loved the first example.   (it's odd, but cool.)
> 

:-)

> > A typed RDF literal consists of a string and a datatype URI [RDF], it
> > is written as "abc"^^datatypeURI,
> 
> really it's     "abc"^^<datatypeURI>
> 
> although since we always qnames in this doc, and lt/gt are often used to
> signal metasyntax, maybe that would just be more confusing.
> 

Well, < > are used only when URIs are full; thus, the form you suggested could
be misread as implying that the URI needs to be full. Because of that, I would
prefer to stick to the notation without the < >.

> > 3 Definition of the rdf:text Datatype
> 
> I'd kinda like table borders in the example; I always have a hard time
> doing them in the wiki, though.
> 

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean: did you mean that the rows
in the first example in Section 3 should be separated by lines? I've added some
borders, but am not convinced this looks that much better.

> > 4 Relationship with Plain RDF Literals and xs:string
> 
> All good (modulo substantive issues raised elsewhere)
> 

Given the discussion that has taken place elsewhere on the list, I haven't
modified this part at all.

> > 5 Functions on rdf:text Data Values
> 
> I didn't read section 5 very closely; I should study xpath, xquery and
> DTB first.
> 
> Let's just use "rtfn" as the namespace abreviation.  No one else seems
> to be using that, and people will probably follow our lead.
> 
> That's it.  :-)
> 
>      -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 09:52:35 UTC