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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 May 2009 14:35
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Boris Motik; Sandro Hawke; 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?
> 
> 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.

I was unclear - I was pointing that in previous discussions, before rdf:text LC, we got to the point of using "MUST" text:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&oldid=18720#Abbreviations_of_rdf:text_and_xs:string_Literals


There is a small burden using "MUST" but the advantage is that it working between OWL and RDF.

 Andy

> 
> >
> >        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 13:50:28 UTC