- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:09:43 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >> 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, That was the idea... > and that > may lead to some confusion. ... probably we should disallow rdf:PlainLiteral to leak out to speech as well :-D ... Seriously, I would consider this overlap a big issue but more a clarifying advantage, since the datatype and its' purpose became self-speaking. Axel > -- 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/ -- 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 00:10:24 UTC