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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document 
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:52:15 -0500

[...]

>> I agree. This kind of micro-tweaking is just going to get people more  
>> confused. And strictly, under this proposal, Peter is right: the  
>> conceptual model of RDF is not changed.
>> 
>> What I think is true, and maybe should be said, is that with this  
>> particular datatype, the conceptual model **of datatyped RDF** is non- 
>> stand... excuse me, unusual, in that this datatype seizes the domain  
>> of plain literals for its own syntax space, so that in this datatyped  
>> RDF, plain literals are treated as typed. But if you don't use this  
>> datatype, RDF is *exactly* the same as it was.

Again, this is not the case.  It is just that you use plain literals
when you might have wanted to use literals typed with rdf:O)->.  These
literals are still plain literals, both in any surface syntax and in RDF
graphs, they do not all of a sudden become typed literals.

>> We could (?) say that  RDF APIs MAY treat plain literals as being  
>> identical to typed literals typed with this datatype, in order to  
>> facilitate interoperability with tools which actually use the  
>> datatype. But its just a MAY.

Could, I suppose.  This might possibly be considered to be an effective
change of the conceptual model, in some sense, I suppose.  ... waffle
... waffle ... waffle ....

> Those both sound pretty good to me, but I'm easy to please.  Peter,
> Dave, are either of them improvements?  Anything else we need to do at
> this point?

I still think that "which allows plain literals can be treated in
certain cases like typed literals" has to go.  I would just remove the
clause.

Section 4 may need a bit of change.  I would go for "syntaxes for SPARQL
basic graphs patterns" changing to "SPARQL syntaxes".  The last sentence
of the section also should be changed in my view.


> I'm filing the OWL request for CR today, optimistically including
> rdf:PlainLiteral.  My hope is that everyone can sign off on this text by
> next Wednesday, and this can go to CR with the rest of the OWL specs.

Optimist!

>     -- Sandro

peter

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 18:41:22 UTC