- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:05:47 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
This is just a heads up - of my efforts on the action item to draft a discussion of the xmlliteral issue for inclusion in the request for advance. Here is what I've got, I will continue on it tomorrow morning. Many URIs are missing. A particular question I would like help with is what are the concise arguments for having reject option 3 from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html which is the closest design to what we've got, that would probably satisfy I18N. I think it's the "puke factor" - but it would be nice to wordsmith that ... Jeremy ============= Dissenting Opinion: xml:lang and rdf:parseType="Literal" The internationalization working group has registered a dissenting opinion on the treatment agreed by RDFCore concerning rdf:parseType="Literal". This dissent is to changes made by the working group in response to comments concerning the last call design, particularly comments concerning the datatype rdf:XMLLiteral. This feature of RDF is the single feature to have attracted most comments both during and before last call. This included comments from Reagle ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0128.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434.html ), Prud'hommeaux, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0240.html Web Ontology WG, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0335.html Patel-Schneider, ( TBD1 TBD2 ), Berners-Lee ( TBD3 ), Marchiori ( TBD4 ) Resolving these comments to the WG's (and the commentators') satisfaction involved changes that impacted aspects that were known to be important to the internationalization working group, and they were informed (TBD5). Duerst then commented further ( TBD6 TBD7 ). A detailed analysis was provided by Ishida. ( TBD8 ). The Working Group gave further consideration to these comments but they did not introduce substantial new arguments that had not already been made in the WG decision of ????. The WG has considered five different designs (the four outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html and the last call design). A key attraction of the current design is simplicity. Members of the WG have argued that: - the treatment of xml:lang is performed by XML exclusive canonicalization (which had been reviewed and accepted by the I18N WG). - an RDF specific solution to perceived deficiences in exclusive canonicalization would not be interoperable with other ad hoc solutions. - long term, a solution based on a generic XML solution, perhaps not dissimilar to XML fragments, would be better - the simplicity of the current design will encourage deployment of XMLLiteral, which will aid internationalization concerns. An important consideration, reflected most in the comments from the Web Ontology WG and Patel-Schneider's concerns, is that unless rdf:XMLLiteral is a normal datatype with no special treatment of language, then OWL Lite and OWL DL do not support it. No version of the OWL Abstract Syntax has permitted literals other than plain literals (with or without language tags) or typed literals (without a language tag). Thus, any solution, other than options 3 or 4 from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html would require substantive changes to OWL DL and OWL Lite. The WG chose option 4 from that message The Working Group did accept an **** We ask the Director to confirm the WG decision despite this dissent.
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 12:06:54 UTC