- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:28:39 +0300
- To: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Pat, Can we take that as support for Option 1? Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] > Sent: 05 May, 2003 23:02 > To: Jeremy Carroll > Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Languageless Typed Literals > > > >Jeremy: > >> Option 1: > >> XMLLiteral ceases to be a typed literal but we revert to the old > >> treatment where it was simply a special. > > > > > >Patrick: > >> My strong preference is then for option 1, reverting (in a sense) > >> XML literals to the M&S definition. > >> > >> This has the additional benefit that lexical forms can be left > >> as-is in the graph per the RDF/XML serialization and only need be > >> canonicalized when testing for equality. > >> > >> Thus, plain and XML literals both may take lang tags and neither > >> are typed literals nor fall within the scope of RDF datatyping. > >> > >> Typed literals do not take lang tags, period. > >> > >> This avoids all the headaches relating to the bizzare datatype > >> rdf:XMLLiteral. > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > > > >The old treatment was in say: > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/ > > > >I think that the reagle issue resolutions would in the main > stay, and the > >canonicalization would still be specified in the syntax, but with the > >implementation note that makes it clear that they "only **need** be > >canonicalized when testing for equality." > > > >I have three concerns about this option: > > > >a) we had comments > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulS ep/0092.html >linking to >http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html#xtocid103643 > >and > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0165.html > >both of which would need resurrecting, since we have followed up saying that >we have changed in the way they sort of wanted. > > >b) how difficult would it be for Pat to go back and rework Not very difficult. I am ready for almost any decision we make, I think. I have the relevant changes scoped out for them all, and will do the edits once we decide. But... > >c) impact on OWL support for XML Literals - webont are generally negative >about them, the more work they have to do, the less support there will be in >OWL for these. ...right. BUt then, Webont are free to rule out this part of RDF from OWL, and take the resulting heat from their user community. I think it would be easier for OWL if it were presented with XML literals as a distinct syntactic category, since that would enable them to deny equality substitution inside XML literals without compromising their semantics. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 09:28:43 UTC