W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:05:33 -0700
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Eric Prud'hommeaux'" <eric@w3.org>, "'Andy Seaborne'" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "'Axel Polleres'" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Message-ID: <002501c9da81$ca798e10$5f6caa30$@com>
> > 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
> otherwise.
>      -- Sandro

A further issue is whether rdf:text can occur as a datatype in an RDF/XML document.
If it can, then there is a further syntactic form semantically equivalent to a plain literal.
If rdf:text is explicitly prohibited from being in an RDF/XML document then it forces the users of rdf:text to be aware of the required serialization as a plain literal, and ensures backward compatibility

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 02:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC