W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:52:43 -0800
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <427A3B58-1FAA-459C-AAEC-2A8B7990079D@ihmc.us>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>

On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:11 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 1:35 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>> Two paragraphs later, add a [[sentence]] to the end of the
>>>> paragraph:
>>> 
>>> The previous paragraph begins with
>>> 
>>> "In summary: RDF literals are either language-tagged strings,
>>>  or datatyped literals"
>>> 
>>> which is inaccurate IMO. We discussed this before when I wanted to
>>> introduce a term for literals that are not langStrings. Here it bites
>>> ourselves. Language-tagged strings are datatyped literals
>> 
>> Weelll not *strictly* they aren't, because *strictly* rdf:langString is
>> not a legal datatype. This is why I have to call it out as an exception
>> in the semantics and give it its own special semantic condition, sigh.
> 
> Hmm... yeah, if you look at it that strictly :-) What a mess for such a
> simple feature...

Tell me about it. 

> This is completely off-topic and I'm asking it just out of curiosity: What
> would break if we would have decided to define a datatype for each language.
> So instead of rdf:langString we would have had something like rdf:lang-xxx
> similar to the container membership properties rdf:_xx:
> 
>  <> rdfs:comment "An explanation in English"^^rdf:lang-en

Andy explained this.

> 
> 
>>> , consequently the OR in this
>>> sentence is, strictly speaking, wrong. The simplest way out is
>> probably to just remove the whole sentence.
>> 
>> But I will just omit the "datatyped", and then the contrast is between
>> langString and the other cases which combine a datatype IRI with (just)
>> one string. OK?
> 
> Not sure I follow. Do you want to change that sentence to
> 
>  "In summary: RDF literals are either language-tagged strings,
>   or literals"
> 
> That doesn't make much sense to me.

Its better if you quote it in full, but let me try again. HOw about this:

In summary: with one exception, RDF literals combine a string and an IRI <a>identify</a>ing a datatype. The exception is language-tagged strings, which have two syntactic components, a string and a language tag, and are assigned the type <code>rdf:langString</code>.

Does that read better?

Pat

> 
> 
>>>> the datatype it refers to must be specified unambiguously, and must
>>>> be fixed during all RDF transformations or manipulations. [[In
>>>> practice, this can be achieved by the IRI linking to an external 
>>>> of specification the datatype which describes both the components 
>>>> of the datatype itself and the fact that IRI identifies the datatype,
>>>> thereby fixing a value of the <a>datatype map</a> of this IRI.]]
>>> 
>>> I don't think we need to add this sentence as we provide no mechanism
>>> to do so in a machine-processable way anyway.
>> 
>> True, but it was intended to be another piece of intuitive glue
>> attaching "datatype map" firmly to "identifies", which was the real
>> point of the changes. Unless you object to its content I would prefer
>> to keep it.
> 
> I can live with it if you think it's necessary.
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 16:53:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC