cross posting about rdf:text

> I have not been tracking this issue, but it does seem a very bad
> idea (well worthy of a formal objection) in general to create a
> incompatibility with something as a basic as a text string, ala plan
> literal. As this seems to be an issue almost entirely motivated by
> formal semantics, I see *no* reason why formal semantic motivations
> should cause pain for users and already existing data.

Harry, and others, I don't think a discussion on is
helpful at this point.  Pat already apologized for cross posting [1].

We're still trying to be clear about what the issues are, and what
decisions, if any, need to be made.  Any decisions will be made by the
OWL and RIF Working Groups (who own this spec), and will, of course, be
subject to several rounds of public review.  The current thread arose in
response to comments from the SPARQL Working Group, and, of course,
every reasonable attempt will be made to reach consensus before the next
draft is published.

There is a mailing list (public-rdf-text) for people who want to get
into the dirty details.  Members of the I18N and SPARQL communities are
already active there, in addition to Pat.  You're welcome to join, but
please read at the least the past few days e-mail before responding.

      -- Sandro  (W3C Staff Contact for RIF and OWL)


Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:12:47 UTC