- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:14:56 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
The issue list http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ shows 6 open concepts issues of which tex-01 xmlsch-01 xmlsch-02 were closed on Friday and I have made proposals on danc-02 goofy literals however they are now out of date given our literals decision. I will make a new proposal, but probably not in time for the telecon - it will be: <<< PROPOSE Accept danc-02. Our design of literals was a bit goofy, and we have changed it: [[ **new text still to be written in light of typed literals decision** **sorry for not hurrying here, but I am trying to be very careful** ]] Moreover, we believe some of the concern was to do with the denotation of literals in the domain of discourse. To avoid copying any goofiness in the abstract syntax into the domain of discourse, we have hence changed the following rule in rdf-mt: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030123/#gddenot From "if E is a plain literal then I(E) = E" to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#gddenot "if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E) = aaa" "if E is a plain literal "aaa"@ttt then I(E) = <aaa, ttt>" The textual gloss is: "Plain literals, without embedded datatypes, are always interpreted as referring to themselves: either a character string or a pair consisting of two character strings." The informative text in concepts: "As recommended in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting." is unchanged. >>> xmlsch-05 character sequences [[ Since "string" is used as the local name for a particular simple type in the XML Schema namespace, we believe it will be less confusing for users, in the long run, if the lexical representations of simple-datatype values are described not as "strings" but as "character sequences". ]] PROPOSE: to not accept this comment. Rationale: It feels like a fairly extensive editorial change. Also in the semantic web activity documents xsd:string is always refered to in its qualified form, and so the possible confusion is diminsihed. xmlsch-06 natural language data [[ A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language identifier. This should be used for plain text in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting. ]] The xmlsch wg rightly picked out a bug - I believe the intent of the should was to say that when you use this syntax then it should be for this purpose. They read it as when you want to achieve this purpose then you should use this syntax. PROPOSE to accept; with rewording (added 'not' and 'except for') [[ A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language identifier. This should not be used except for plain text in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting. ]] (Note this an informative "should not", not a normative "SHOULD NOT") Summary: 6 issues shown open, 3 already closed, 2 proposals to close above, 1 proposal to close missing text to be crafted. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 07:14:53 UTC