Re: rdf-text telecon agenda

The demand that rdf:text datatyped literals *MUST NOT* appear in
published RDF content requires that any RDF application that might
generate published RDF content (even if only because rdf:text datatyped
literals might appear in its input and then pass through the
application) be revised to scrub rdf:text datatyped literals from its
output or be non-compliant.

peter


From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: rdf-text telecon agenda 
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:47:25 -0500

> 
> Thanks for the excellent enumeration of the solution space.  Up through
> level five, it makes good sense to me.  Personally, I'm fine with levels
> 3 through 5.
> 
> I remain confused about level 6.  I don't understand what about the
> current draft would make people change existing code, etc.
> 
> I understand the current draft to be "level 5.5" which is level 5 plus
> some SPARQL-specific wording.  (I hope you'll forgive me for
> re-purposing your numbers like this -- you numbered them as preferences,
> but they seem to be nicely in order of increasing restrictiveness.)
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> 
>> My first preference towards meeting the interoperability goal would be
>> to say *nothing* about restricting rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF.
>> There are already many ways to have datatyped literals in RDF (and its
>> semantic extensions, such as RDF+owl:sameAs) whose value space has a
>> non-trivial intersection with the "value space" of plain RDF literals.
>> Given this, what use is it to prevent one more way?
>> 
>> My second preference would be to just change the OWL 2 mapping to RDF
>> graphs document to map rdf:text datatyped literal into plain RDF
>> literals.
>> 
>> My third and fourth preferences would be to say that applications (and
>> recommendations) that incorporate rdf:text may/should be nice to older
>> applications (and recommendatations) and therefore may/should not emit
>> rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF syntaxes by changing them to plain
>> literals.
>> 
>> My fifth preference would be to say that in *syntaxes* for RDF graphs,
>> e.g., RDF/XML and Turtle, (and related syntaxes, such as any syntaxes
>> for SPARQL basic graph patterns, I guess) the syntax for rdf:text
>> datatyped literals *is* the syntax for plain RDF literals.
>> 
>> My last preference would be to make statements where complete compliance
>> would require all RDF applications to change.  This is what the current
>> document says.
>> 
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Alcatel-Lucent

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 13:53:18 UTC