Re: simple fix

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Can't we just say, as strongly as we need to, that rdf:text is NOT for
> > use in RDF?  Instead it is for use in *non-RDF* systems which use XML
> > datatypes and want interoperability with RDF's language-tagged literals?
> > 
> > I know that hasn't been made very clear, to date.   New title:
> > 
> >   rdf:text -- an equivalent to RDF Plain Literals for non-RDF systems
> > 
> > We can be more precise about this in the body -- I like Dave Reynold's
> > description of how RIF is not an RDF system, but is still compatible --
> > but mostly this just seems like a PR problem.
> > 
> > I think there's also an open question of whether to allow empty language
> > tags, and whether RDF plain literals without language tags should be
> > mapped to xs:strings instead of rdf:text, but I bet we can solve those a
> > lot more easily after we're clear about rdf:text's place in the world.
> > 
> >        -- Sandro
> 
> All,
> 
> I am personally fine with this and/or Andy's suggested wording:
> Maybe doing both the title change and adding the respective paragraph is 
> no harm...
> 
> One last proposal (if you think changing this is at all feasible):
> 
> Wouldn't it make things MUCH clearer than if we change the name to the 
> datatype to just
> 
>     rdf:PlainLiteral
> 
> I have the feeling that with that name the intention is much clearer 
> than rdf:text and somewhat it even "hints" why it is not a good idea to 
> use it in RDF systems, since in RDF systems there is already a unique 
> standard syntax  for plain literals.

+0.5 I like the idea, but I hesitate because in speech "RDF Plain
Literal" and "rdf:PlainLiteral" are likely to sound the same, and that
may lead to some confusion.

     -- Sandro


> E.g. (modifying Andy's proposed text accordinglt:)
> """
> Systems that employ SPARQL with entailment regimes that cover 
> D-entailment of rdf:PlainLiteral, MUST expose their results in the RDF 
> forms.  This condition is met when the scoping graph contains literals 
> in the RDF forms plain literals and xsd:string and does not mention 
> rdf:PlainLiteral as a datatype.
> """
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> One thing I am not sure still: It was pointed out that we cannot prevent 
> people from writing graphs using rdf:text as a datatype explicitly.
> Is that a problem?
> 
> Axel
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
> Galway
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 00:05:34 UTC