Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5

On May 27, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Hey, look, if nobody else is bothered by these issues, then I'll  
>> just shut
>> up and live with whatever gets written. I'm sure the world in  
>> general will
>> find a way to live with it. But I predict that there will be  
>> problems and
>> confusions. Just don't say I didn't warn y'all.
>>
>> Pat
>
> I for one agree with your suggestions, Pat, and I
> think what you're saying is important. I don't really get what Peter  
> is
> saying or why he is so strongly opposed to your suggestions, which
> seem small and
> harmless, at worst. If I'm silent it's because you're doing such a
> good job and I
> have nothing to add. So please don't go away.
>

Oh, don't worry, its harder than that to actually get *rid* of me.

But the differences between Peter's current line and my suggestion are  
really more to do with presentation and wording than with content.  
They both amount to: keeping RDF literal syntax unchanged, prohibiting  
the use of rdf:text in typed literal syntax, and reinterpreting plain  
literal syntax as being typed with rdf:text. The only difference is  
that Peter's wording kind of sneaks this past the reader, by being  
very scholastic and careful in its wording, whereas mine is much more  
in-your-face and explicit. I don't think any user or tool-builder is  
going to be able to tell the difference; it will only be an issue when  
people get very picky-picky about exactly which specs say what.

Peter's wording manages to avoid being a change to RDF, technically  
speaking, but is clearly designed to exert a kind of retroactive  
pressure on RDF tools to recognize rdf:text adequately, like RIF and  
OWL2 will. My wording creates two varieties of RDF. I'm not sure which  
is best, to tell you the truth.  It may well be that Peter's style  
will in fact cause less grief than mine, in practice, since it will  
allow a gradual morphing from old RDF to new RDF without most people  
noticing the change, whereas mine requires you to wear your  
allegiances on your sleeve, so to speak. Also, I simply had not  
thought of the issue that Andy raised, about mime types, and I don't  
have an answer.

And, there was an actual vote during the call, and Peter's version won  
it, and mine clearly caused a lot of back-pressure and er-um  
reactions. And I think he has adequately answered all of my email  
objections.  So I'm inclined to go with the flow and stick to arguing  
about minor wording tweaks. I think everything will work out OK, in  
fact.

Pat



> Jonathan
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thursday, 28 May 2009 03:16:05 UTC