Re: regrets and last input for the call...

On May 26, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> As I can't join the call, here some last input for word-smithing...
>
> At a second read... what I just committed reads strange:
>
> >> Maybe (intro): """ ...typed rdf:text literals MUST NOT occur in
> >> published RDF content or in the results of SPARQL basic graph  
> pattern
> >>  matching [SPARQL] using extended SPARQL Basic Graph Matching"""
>
> I won't object against it, but how about rather:
>
> "In order to prevent interoperability problems between RDF  
> processors that support rdf:text and those that do not, typed  
> rdf:text literals in published RDF content MUST NOT be generated by  
> RDF processors, such as APIs, or SPARQL engines that implement  
> SPARQL basic graph pattern matching [SPARQL] using extended SPARQL  
> Basic Graph Matching;"
>
>
> Would that go?
>
> I think we simply can't reasonably forbid that anyone "publishes"
> rdf:text literals... just as e.g. ill-typed xs:integer literals  
> can't be forbidden. (and ill-typed literals already *do* occur on  
> the Web... )
>
> I.e., if I publish today
>
> :axel :likes "foo"^^xs:integer.
>
> that is totally ok with RDF. It might not be wise, but well.

Right, exactly. But if we say explicitly that we are defining a (tiny)  
semantic extension to RDF, then we can say that it - this extension,  
call it "plain typed RDF" for want of a better name - comes with a  
strict syntax prohibition against literals like this. And then a  
SPARQL engine can declare that it will only deal with plain typed RDF  
graphs, which conform to the restriction, and reject those that don't  
(or give wrong answers on them, or whatever.) OWL and RIF can say that  
their engines are required to use only plain typed RDF, as part of  
their normative specs, and current RDF publishers can just say, yes,  
they too are conforming to it, and go on doing exactly what they have  
always done, without changing a single character in any current RDF  
file. All we have to do, is give this new revized RDF (which comes  
along with the MUST NOT applied to these typed literals) a name. We  
can strongly recommend that people use it "rather than" old RDF, but  
that's up to them. Social pressures to conform will likely fix any  
problems quite quickly, provided there is an accessible and quite  
unambiguous spec document to point people to.

> Likewise, I also can publish complete nonsense in terms of OWL and  
> nobody can prevent that [1]
>
> In that light... saying that publishing
>
> :axel :likes "bar"^^rdf:PlainLiteral.
>
> is something that MUST NOT be done, I have the feeling that is  
> overshooting

I think its impossible, strictly speaking. It amounts to  
retrospectively re-writing the RDF specs, and I don't see that the W3C  
has any mechanism for doing that. Even OWL 2 doesn't actually change  
OWL 1.

Pat Hayes

> Still, I think we can and should prevent systems to generate such  
> thing. I would thus prefer the rewording suggested above.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
>
> 1. http://axel.deri.ie/~axepol/nasty.rdf
>
>
> xel Polleres wrote:
>> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>> Boris,
>>>
>>> The text talks about "in a SPARQL basic graph pattern" - that  
>>> could be read as what goes in to matching (i.e. part of the PSARQL  
>>> query syntax. It needs to refer to the results of matching a BGP  
>>> (what comes out of matching).
>>>
>>> (I'm not worried about use of rdf:text in a BGP)
>>>
>>> Maybe (intro): """ ...typed rdf:text literals MUST NOT occur in  
>>> published RDF content or in the results of SPARQL basic graph  
>>> pattern
>>> matching [SPARQL] using extended SPARQL Basic Graph Matching"""
>>> *in the result of* is the key here.
>> I implemented it:
>> * SPARQL reference added
>> * your suggested text added.
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&diff=24147&oldid=24140 
>>  Is the document in that form acceptable?
>
> At a second read... that is strange.
> As I can't come tomorrow, here some last input for word-smithing...
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:09:34 UTC