On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:34:07PM -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On May 20, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > >On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:38:29PM +0200, Boris Motik wrote: > >> > > .... > > >>If such a solution doesn't exist yet, then the SPARQL WG should > >>address these > >>issues, and it should do so in general for all datatypes > >>(xsd:integer, > >>xsd:decimal, and so on), not just for rdf:text. > > > >I'd argue that it's more of an RDF Core issue (admitting that they > >don't exist). > > I agree. The elegant solution would be to have a single RDF literal > form "string"@tag^^type where @tag and ^^type are both optional, and > have the type rdf:text be optionally invisible, so that "foo"@baz is > an abbreviation form for "foo"@baz^^rdf:text . Then existing RDF is > still legal, all the needed entailments are RDF entailments, and RIF > and OWL2 have their datatype, and we wouldn't have that ugly trailing > "@" inside the string quotes. > > Maybe its time to re-convene RDF Core to clean up this and other bits > of left-over RDF junk. Who has the authority to do this? gosh, i think you do. which is to say, any group of 10 vested members could make a tenable working group, but i think they'd have to win the popularity contest on swig and a few other fora before the advisory committee would think it's a likely enough bet to spend resources and credibility on it. the proposal you state would touch a lot of code, piss a lot of people off, and just possibly make the world safer for our children. it might be most effective to attack this particular chicken and egg problem by persuading vendors to adopt, submitting a note, and then suggesting a WG. > Pat > -- -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 19:17:18 UTC