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

Hello,

I don't see the benefit of option 1, as it makes things unnecessarily complex.
The fewer exceptions we have, the easier it will be to actually implement a
conformant system. The dichotomy between plain und typed literals is just an
example of an exception that just makes implementation difficult. Instead of
introducing more special cases, I think we should unify these whenever possible.

Furthermore, I'm not sure whether sorting out things such as the ones pointed
out below is necessary to finalize the rdf:text specification. Please note that
rdf:text already has a well-defined lexical and value space, and this is *the
only* thing that we need to be able to plug rdf:text into the model theory of
RDF. That is, given RDF graphs G1 and G2 possibly containing rdf:text literals
and/or plain literals, using the definitions from the present rdf:text
specification one can unambiguously answer the question whether G1 D-entails G2.
For example, if G1 is

<a, b, "abc@en"^^rdf:text>

and G2 is

<a, b, "abc"@en>

then, according to the existing RDF model theory document, G1 D-entails G2 and
vice versa. I don't see what else is there for the rdf:text specification to do:
I really think that the specification is complete. If SPARQL or other
specifications want to apply rdf:text in a different way and create special
cases, they are free to do so; however, I don't think it is in scope of the
rdf:text specification to solve all such problems. 

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Sent: 20 May 2009 03:18
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-rdf-text@w3.org; Boris Motik; Sandro Hawke; Axel
> Polleres
> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text
> --> Could you please check it one more time?
> 
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:57:11PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > Apologies:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Monday PM end before 18:00 (GMT+1)
> > >> Thursday PM.
> > >> Tuesday @17:00 (GMT+1) for a short call; end before 17:30.
> >
> > I can't make the slot.
> >
> > Input: please consider interoperability of data between OWL and RDF.  Option
> 1 is better for that than option 2 as Eric points out.
> >
> > This is also the least change to LC and IMHO is not a substantive change (it
> follows on from the current graph exchange intent) to add the text needed for
> SPARQL.  Roughly: the scoping graph of an rdf-text aware D-entailment for BGP
> matching includes the RDF forms and does not include ^^rdf:text.  (Non-aware
> entailment regimes would merely treat as a datatype form.)
> 
> does anyone oppose option 1 (plain literals are considered to satisfy
> entailments constrained to type rdf:text and entailments of type rdf:text are
> expressed as plain literals in the RDF graph)? (i'm wondering if we can work
> this out before we work out scheduling this phone call.)
> 
> 
> > 	Andy
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 19 May 2009 16:01
> > > To: Axel Polleres
> > > Cc: Seaborne, Andy; public-rdf-text@w3.org; Boris Motik; Sandro Hawke;
> > > eric@w3.orf
> > > 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 10:03 AM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Alan, since you were calling for the TC, is that fixed now?
> > > > Otherwise, I am afraid it is not possible before Friday.
> > >
> > > Yes, let's have whoever can make it meet at 5:30 BST = 12:30 Boston
> > > time.
> > > Zakim, meet on irc #rdftext for the code. I will send a code earlier if
> > > I can.
> > >
> > > -Alan
> 
> --
> -eric
> 
> office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
> mobile: +1.617.599.3509
> 
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 07:30:32 UTC