Re: getting to Last Call on rdf:text

Here is my take on the editor notes:


Issue 1, re: an infinity of characters in Unicode, seems wrong
according to the documentation of Unicode "All three encoding forms
need at most 4 bytes (or 32-bits) of data for each character", but
arguments for defining it that way are pragmatic. It would seem that
this needs to be a technical decision about this, probably by vote if
there is not consensus at this point.

Issue 2 asks for an example of pattern and langpattern.

An example of pattern would be "(in)|(out)", which matches the
character sequences "in" and "out" and nothing else. It is unclear to
me whether the literal should be written as a plan literal or not, but
I am guessing so.

An example of a langpattern is "(en)|(en-.+)" - one could get more
precise by following http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt but I'm
not sure it's worth it.

The reference for the pattern language is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dt-regex

Note: 3
Editor's Note: In RDF, internationalized text also includes XML
literals. For example
 <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Some text</rdfs:label>

 <rdfs:label rdf:parseType="Literal">
   <span xml:lang="en">Some text</span>
 </rdfs:label>
rdf:text does not provide a replacement to internationalized strings
as XML literals. However, in some situations, it may be possible to
allow the equivalence between rdf:text and XML literals. One may
follow the example in RDF on optional equivalence treatment of
xsd:string and rdf:XMLLiteral
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-XMLLiteral),
and declare situations under which rdf:text and rdf:XMLLiteral can be
considered equivalent."

Given where we are, I suggest that this be resolved by deliberately
making XML literals out of scope.


Note 4 - "Editor's Note: Since the equivalence between
"text"^^xs:string and "text" follows from RDF entailment rules xsd1a
and xsd1b, the abbreviation of xs:string may be mentioned just as a
note."

I'd suggest taking no action on this.

Note 5:
Editor's Note: Reuse of the fn: namespace in the following functions
is still under discussion, cf.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2008OctDec/0020.html

A suggestion has been made that there be liason with the XQuery WG.
Has this been done? Failing this, I suggest that the RIF group decides
this one (quickly), as they do not impact OWL.

Note 6.
Editor's Note: Open Issues: The inclusion of text-length, as well as
the definition of the function - whether the length of an rdf:text
value should concern only the string part - are still under
discussion.

As this impinges on the namespace that is controlled by the XQuery WG
I suggest that we either ask them to define them or drop them.

-Alan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
> At the request of OWL-WG, RIF-WG just looked at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec with an eye
> to making a LC decision, but the draft is clearly not ready.  It has six
> editor's notes in it.
>
> Let's talk about those as necessary on this list, ASAP, to figure out
> how to get rid of them, and make any other necessary changes.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 18:40:59 UTC