- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 17:09:29 -0500
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Pat, > >Can we take that as support for Option 1? Expression of personal opinion in favor of option 1, yes. But I don't feel strongly about it, and a built-in datatype would be OK as long as it was in line with the other datatypes . Pat > >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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 18:09:34 UTC