Re: getting to Last Call on rdf:text

Oops, the last mail was sent unfinished. This starts from issue 5

2009/3/24 Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
I will contact Axel

> 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.
>
I agree to drop this note from rdf:text.

Jie

> -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
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Jie Bao
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 19:14:10 UTC