- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:24:15 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, public-rdf-text@w3.org
On May 21, 2009, at 7:05 PM, 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, and that > may lead to some confusion. Beautiful. Please see the redraft I just posted a link to. That is exactly the idea: that there should be an institutionalized confusion between RDF Plain literals and rdf:PlainLIteral literals, in that the latter are declared syntactically illegal and the former treated just as being the latter, semantically. Put another way, current syntax is re-defined to have the latter semantics. This isnt strict RDF, it is a semantic extension; but its such a small and useful one that I bet it will instantly become a de facto standard, and OWL and RIF are already semantic extensions anyway. And it completely eliminates the interoperability problems. Pat > > -- 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/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 00:25:38 UTC