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

Peter, in your discussion with Pat you discussed "rdftext-entailment"
and it seemed that this helped clarify the situation. However there
isn't mention of this in the current document. I wonder if added a
discussion of it would help.
-Alan

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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 12:34:04 UTC