Re: Action-48 text: a New Plan for plain literals

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Subject: Re: Action-48 text: a New Plan for plain literals
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:41:08 -0500

> Le 23/05/2011 16:24, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>> There would be an effect on the OWL 2 specs.  At the very least,
>> rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral would have to be added to the reserved
>> vocabulary.
> 
>  From the OWL 2 SS&FS:
> 
> 
> """IRIs with prefixes rdf:, rdfs:, xsd:, and owl: constitute the 
> reserved vocabulary of OWL 2."""
> 
> 
> so, no, we don't need to add rdf:LanguageTaggedLiteral to the reserved 
> vocabulary since it is already in.

Sorry, I meant to say that it would have to be added to the reserved
vocabulary with special treatment.  And, of course, that special
treatment would have to be reflected throughout the OWL 2
specification. 

> Sections 4.3 and 5.7 of the structural spec should be
>> rewritten.  I expect that other parts of this document would have to be
>> changed to reflect the new kind of lexical space.
>>
>> Other normative documents would probably have to be changed, including
>> the mapping to RDF, the RDF-based semantics, and profiles.
> 
> If "foo"@en is declared as syntactic sugar in *all* concrete syntaxes, 
> then the mapping will certainly "look" the same, although abstractly 
> different, right?

I fully expect that some changes will be required, particularly as there
are many places in the documents that refer to RDF graphs.

>> There would be an effect on OWL 2 implementations.  Each implementation
>> would have to handle this new form for strings.
> 
> But that form of string will be forbidden to appear in concrete 
> syntaxes, so would it cause real problems?

What about:

9. It's ok to use rdf:LanguageTaggedString and rdf:PlainLiteral in
rdfs:range statements. 

This would require implementation.

As well, OWL 2 implementations will have to handle
rdf:LanguageTaggedString when interacting with things like triple
stores, etc.

>> Getting approval from the OWL WG for changes might be very difficult, as
>> there was much debate on rdf:PlainLiteral.  I don't see any benefits of
>> rdf:LanguagedTaggedString over rdf:PlainLiteral.
> 
> rdf:LanguagedTaggedString is not a replacement for rdf:PlainLiteral, 
> it's a complement.

OK, then I don't see any benefits of rdf:LanguagedTaggedString plus
rdf:PlainLiteral.  over rdf:PlainLiteral by itself.

> AZ.

peter

Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 15:08:30 UTC