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

Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
>> -----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.

Thaat sounds good to me (i.e. the most reasonable we can do at the moment)

Axel

> 	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
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 13:32:35 UTC