Re: rdf-text telecon agenda

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: rdf-text telecon agenda 
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:36:32 -0500

[...]

>> > 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, this is not the kind of thing to say in a recommendation
> 
> Isn't that what RFC 2119 "MAY" is for?  I don't think we have to say
> anything about this, but it seems to me we should really try to help
> people coming fresh to this spec to understand what it means for them.

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

>> -1, this document does *not* have anything to do with an XML Schema datatype
> 
> Huh...  That's an odd claim.  For many drafts, the document has said
> "Datatypes are defined in this document along the lines of XML Schema
> Datatypes [XML Schema Datatypes]. Each datatype is identified by a URI
> and is described by the following components...."  In mind, this has
> always been an XML Schema datatype.  In RIF (and I think OWL) it's used
> exactly like a subset of the datatypes defined in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/.  In what way is this not an XML
> Schema datatype?

rdf:text is compatible with XML Schema datatypes, but it is certainly
not an XML Schema datatype.  At least if it is it sure is a weird one,
and I bet that the XML Schema WG would be very surprised if it showed up
in the list of XML Schema datatypes.

>> -1, it is not the case that all RDF folks cannot freely ignore this spec
>>     without harm, nor should it be
> 
> This claim is also surprising to me.  Who, not using using OWL 2 or RIF,
> would need to read this spec?

The datatype IRI is *supposed* to be able to show up in RDF graphs, in
triples like

	ex:name rdfs:range rdf:text .

If *all* RDF folks can ignore this spec, then how are the ignorami 
supposed to handle this triple?

[...]

>       -- Sandro

peter

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 13:49:47 UTC