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

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 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."

OK.

>> (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? 

Isn't it?  I've lost the plot on what the intention is.  You tell me 
what the working group intends to be the answer here.

> 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.

Sure, that's why I used "should". There is no standardization of APIs so 
each is free to interpret how the formal specs should be manifested to 
the actual users.

That doesn't affect the fact that the conceptual model has changed and 
so APIs are likely to evolve to reflect this. This is hardly the end of 
the world. I just found it hard to accept the bald statement "does not 
change the conceptual model".

The spec probably does the best that can be done to minimize the impact 
of the change on interoperability.

>> 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?  

I don't see how that would help.

> Do you have any serious issues with section 4?

No.

> 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

I hadn't seen such a proposal.

I wouldn't object.

Dave

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 12:59:57 UTC