Re: answers to questions about rdf:text?

On May 27, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
> Subject: Re: regrets and last input for the call...
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:57:41 -0500
>
> [...]
>
>> BTW, we now have a new open RDF issue: are rdf:XMLLiteral and
>> rdf:PlainLiteral disjoint?  Is this a new RDF inconsistency:
>>
>> _:x rdf:type rdf:PlainLiteral .
>> _:x rdf:type rdf:XMLLIteral .
>>
>> I can see arguments both ways, but I think we ought to decide it and
>> give a ruling, rather than just let the matter dangle so that people
>> will do it various ways. It seems more useful to say they are
>> disjoint, even though valid XML is still perfectly correct as a
>> character string. And Ive heard it argued that marked-up text is  
>> still
>> not plain text, even when it has no markup. I guess it kind of smells
>> different, or something.
>
> I think that this is adequately addressed by the wording in RDF
> Concepts,
>
>  The value space [of rdf:XMLLiteral]
>  is a set of entities, called XML values, which is:
>  * disjoint from the lexical space;
>  * disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype [XML- 
> SCHEMA2];
>  * disjoint from the set of Unicode character strings [UNICODE]  
> strings;

Ah yes, you are right. OK, thanks.

>  * and in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.
>
> This does not exactly rule out that some elements of the value space  
> of
> rdf:XMLLiteral could be pairs of strings and language tags, but I  
> think
> that this would go without saying.
>
>> Another question: do we want to provide a way **in RDF** to talk  
>> about
>> the lang tags directly? That is, should the extension provide for RDF
>> properties to support entailments like these:
>>
>> aaa ppp "this"@that .
>>
>> ??entails??
>>
>> aaa ppp _:x  .
>> _:x rdf:hasString "this"  .
>> _:x rdf:hasTag  "that"  .
>>
>> The reason I ask is, if people think this might be useful (seems to  
>> me
>> it would be) then now is surely the time to define them, as part of
>> the overall convention.
>>
>> No doubt their names should be chosen better, but Im sure y'all see
>> the point.
>
> I would say that we don't need to go there, and in the interests of  
> time
> that we shouldn't.

PRobably, though I predict that we will take some heat for this in  
future.

Pat

>
>> Pat
>
> peter
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 27 May 2009 17:41:33 UTC