Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document

> Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
> > now has my edits with the changes from Pat/Jonathan?
> > and the extra sentence from Andy.
> > All edits have descriptions in the history page so you can see how the
> > document has evolved. 
> > 
> > Please take a look and see if you like it, taking into account the
> > continuing discussion on how exactly to best handle SPARQL.
> 
> (1) The introduction section states:
> 
> "This branching approach to the design for RDF literals complicates the 
> specifications based on RDF, such as RIF and OWL."
> 
> This is not correct, RIF is not "based on RDF", the motivation for 
> rdf:text (sorry, rdf:PlainLiteral) in RIF is not as stated here.

I changed it to "This branching approach to the design for RDF literals
complicates specifications which connect to RDF, such as RIF and OWL."

> (2) The introduction goes on to state that it "does not change the 
> conceptual model of RDF". This is also not correct.
> 
> At present an API working over RDF which is asked for the datatype of a 
> plain literal should return the programming equivalent of "there isn't 
> one". After the spec such an API should return "rdf:PlainLiteral". 

Is that true?  My understanding is that it's really up the API and not
something that has been standardized.  APIs were always free to do
something like this before, and they're free to do something different
even after this (hopefully) reaches Rec.  I guess Jena always tried to
follow the ideas of the spec quite closely, but I don't think all RDF
APIs did, or that the others were wrong for approaching the RDF data
from a different angle.

> It may not affect other specs, it may not affect the RDF that is exchanged 
> but it *is* a change to the "conceptual model".

Would it help to add language about this kind of thing being entirely
optional for RDF compliance?  Any other ideas about how to clarify it?

I think that in the telecon there was a clear sense that between
explicitely saying this spec creates a different RDF, as Pat was
suggesting, or being more subtle about this notion, people generally
favored being more subtle.

Do you have any serious issues with section 4?

Also, are you happy with my proposed function name changes:
     text-from-string --> plain-literal-from-string
     string-from-text --> string-from-plain-literal
     lang-from-text   --> lang-from-plain-literal
namespace 
     http://www.w3.org/2009/rdf-text-functions
-->  http://www.w3.org/2009/plain-literal-functions
?

Thanks.

     -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 11:58:32 UTC