Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?

> >> Why not just in RIF and OWL2 have plain literals default to be
> >> treated as having a data-type of "rdf:text" (or whatever is needed in
> >> the formal semantics), and never require the explicit edition of any
> >> work by the users?
> >>
> >> In particular, ""Family Guy" would then default to ""Family Guy@". Why
> >> is this option not tenable? Seems rather sensible to me, but I assume
> >> there *must* be some reason for not doing it that way.
> >
> > That is almost exactly what Ive just proposed.
> OK, so my reading of rdf:text was not mistaken then.
> Yes, I was very surprised when I read the rdf:text draft that this
> wasn't actually what was done, I just sort of assumed it was, since it
> seems rather sensible, allowing RIF and OWL2 to be used better over
> RDF data.

I haven't really been able to follow what you've been saying, but, yes,
of course RIF and OWL2 can (in all designs considerd) be used over RDF
data with plain literals (and the plain literals are interpreted as
rdf:text literals).  If the specs were ambiguous about this, I'm sure
it's because it never occured to us that someone might imagine it

     -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 01:56:24 UTC