SPARQL-WG comment on rdf:text

We got a comment from the SPARQL WG on rdf:text [1].  I gather there
were various off-list e-mails by people trying to figure out what to do
about it.  I was CC'd on some, but didn't read them.  Let's try to keep
the discussion on-list, and hopefully we can keep it brief.

For myself, I read the SPARQL comment to be pointing out ways that
rdf:text literals could leak out and be visible to SPARQL users.  Before
we went to Last Call, I believe we came to an understanding (mostly in
discussion between me and Dave Reynolds), that rdf:text literals would
not leak out to be visible to SPARQL users, RDF users, or anyone else
who wasn't expecting them.  Dave presented this is a requirement for HP
to supporting the move to Last Call, and I argued for a while before
agreeing.

We understood there would need to be more wordsmithing, to make it clear
exactly how to prevent this leaking.  The SPARQL-WG comment nicely
pointed out some ways the leaking could occur; this is good input to the
wordsmithing.

Does anyone see a problem here that can't just be solved by this kind of
wordsmithing about how rdf:text doesn't leak out?

(I caught wind of some questions about the value and lexical spaces of
xs:string and rdf:text, but I don't think we need to go anywhere near
that stuff in addressing the SPARQL comment.  If it's a problem within
OWL or within RIF, it can be addressed on their own lists.)

     -- Sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0009

Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 19:49:06 UTC