Re: rdf-text telecon agenda

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Alan, Eric, and I just talked through the status of this effort, and
> came up with an agenda based on trying to make sure we're all in
> agreement on the things we think we're in agreement on, and then going
> on to share ideas about the remaining issue(s).
> 
>    Changed IRC channel: #owl
>    Teleconference code: OWL1  (6951)
>    10am Eastern  Time
> 
> This agenda has lots of PROPOSED resolutions.  This group has no formal
> decision-making authority, so these resolutions should be understood as
> reflecting consensus among the people who attend.  Brief +1 / -1
> response via e-mail could be helpful, too.
> 
> 1.  set of language tags
> 
>     BCP-47 vs RFC-3066
>     Clarify that we're interpreting RDF Concepts as
>         linking to 3066 or it successor.
>     double-check with addison?
> 
>     PROPOSED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC
>     3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is
>     currently BCP-47).  We'll add a note to this effect to this spec.

+1


> 2.  change of name of datatype
> 
>     PROPOSED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be
>     called rdf:PlainLiteral

+1

> 3.  change of title
> 
>     PROPOSED: The title will no longer mention i18n.  It will be
>     something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals


+1

> 4.  how much of i18n stuff to remove?
> 
>     PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll
>     remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about
>     xml:lang, etc.
> 
>     (That paragraph was expanded in response to Michael
>     Sperberg-McQueen's comment.  Assuming Michael is okay, we'll just
>     drop that paragraph.)

0

> 5.  action: we need a new Abstract
> 
> 6.  plain literals without language tags
> 
>     PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so
>     Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by
>     rdf:PlainLiteral.

+1


> 7.  backward-compatibility goal
> 
>     This spec is not asking anyone to change their RDF implementation.
>     We're not adding market pressure to add the d-entailment.  RDF
>     folks can freely ignore this spec, without harm.
> 
>     PROPOSED: The spec will be clear that while this spec formally
>     specifies an XML Schema datatype, we do not promote or suggest or
>     pressure RDF or SPARQL software or data to be modified to
>     support/use this datatype.

+1

> 8.  interoperability goal
> 
>     PROPOSED: We'll say something about how rdf:PlainLiteral typed
>     literals are not supposed to to leak out and break the
>     backward-compatibility goal.

+1 see my latest wording proposal which I hope can be acceptable.

> 9.  How to meet the interoperability goal...?
> 
>   .. brainstorming, sharing ideas, etc ...
>      
>      * Pat's approach using RDF'
> 
>     Status of Table 3?
> 
>     What do we say specifically about SPARQL?  
> 
>       - it shouldn't be be in the queried graph (but this this
>         isn't about SPARQL)
>       - it shouldn't be in the BGP
>       - it shouldn't be in a filter
>                STR("foo@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral), LANG( ), DATATYPE( )
>       - it shouldn't be in CONSTRUCT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 23:03:47 UTC