RE: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> Sent: 18 May 2009 08:02
> To: 'Sandro Hawke'
> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with
> rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If OWL and RIF need to do any kind of rewriting, this is the business of
> OWL and
> RIF, not of rdf:text. Therefore, I don't think we need to discuss that
> in the
> rdf:text document.
> 
> (OWL already contains this requirement; see the section on Literals in
> the
> Syntax document.)

The text being:

    *  Literals of the form "abc"^^xsd:string and "abc@"^^rdf:text SHOULD be abbreviated to "abc" whenever possible.
    * Literals of the form "abc@langTag"^^rdf:text where "langTag" is not empty SHOULD be abbreviated to "abc"@langTag whenever possible.


i.e. - it goes back to using SHOULD and not MUST.

 Andy

> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Boris
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> > Sent: 18 May 2009 06:20
> > To: Boris Motik
> > Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with
> rdf:text
> > --> Could you please check it one more time?
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > STR("Hello@"^^xs:string)= STR("Hello@"^^rdf:text) = "Hello@"
> > > STR("Hello@en")=
> > > STR("Hello@en"^^rdf:text)=
> > > STR("Hello@en"^^xs:string)= "Hello"@en"
> >                      you mean "Hello@en" I assume
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > As a consequence, I believe that the LC comment of the SPARQL WG
> > > should be addressed by simply removing any mention of literal
> > > replacement during graph exchange. This makes it clear that rdf:text
> > > is just another, regular datatype that is in no way different from
> the
> > > other XML Schema or user-defined datatypes.
> >
> > Hmmmm.   Okay, this approach might make sense, yeah.
> >
> > I'd think we should at least include a practical, non-normative
> warning
> > that rdf:text is not usuable as a general-purpose replacement for RDF
> > plain literals, because RDF systems in general do not implement
> rdf:text
> > D-entailment.
> >
> > But more than that, in practice, RIF and OWL systems are going to need
> > to rewrite rdf:text terms into plain literals during output, I think,
> so
> > ... don't we need to say that somewhere?
> >
> >      -- Sandro
>

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 11:21:13 UTC