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

I don't see where it would be either appropriate or necessary to put
this in the rdf:O)-> document.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:33:09 -0500

> 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 13:05:37 UTC