- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:07:16 -0400
- To: <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 06:04:52 -0500 > 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. This is from a later change, and not part of my changes. > (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". I am not aware that anything that I have proposed would require this change - plain literals are still plain literals, after all - so I maintain that the conceptual model of RDF is not changed. There are still plain literals and datatyped literals. Software that does not understand rdf:O)-> can proceed largely as before. Yes, this introduces a potential complication for software that wants to use rdf:O)->. Yes, I don't think that this is a great situation to end up in. However, the desire to protect existing software does have consequences. > It > may not affect other specs, it may not affect the RDF that is exchanged > but it *is* a change to the "conceptual model". > Dave peter
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 12:09:05 UTC