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

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> 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.

Shouldn't this be a part of Mapping to RDF. As it stands now I think
it would erroneously instruct that rdf:text literals are written
without change.

-Alan

>
>        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 13:35:36 UTC