W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Alternatives for the handling of tagged literals

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-09-07 to 2011-09-20.

16 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Alternatives

1. Alternatives

Pat Hayes' email also gives some pros and cons that you might want to check.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
NoYes, but prefer notYesYes, and prefer
1. Current state: tagged literals have no type. 2 10 1 3
2a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs. 6 5 5
2b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat. 6 5 4 1
2c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat. 6 5 5
3a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal. 7 4 4 1
3b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all. 11 2 3
4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping. 11 1 1 3
2d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. 2 3 7 3

Ranking of choices in order of least unacceptable/most prefered:

RanksAll responders:
12d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping.
21. Current state: tagged literals have no type.
32b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat.
42c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat.
52a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs.
63a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal.
74. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping.
83b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all.

Details

Responder 1. Current state: tagged literals have no type.2a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs.2b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat. 2c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat.3a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal.3b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all.4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping.2d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping.
Antoine Zimmermann No Yes No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not No Yes, and prefer
Ivan Herman Yes, but prefer not No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes No Yes, and prefer Yes, but prefer not
Richard Cyganiak Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, and prefer No No No No Yes, and prefer
Lee Feigenbaum Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
Jeremy Carroll Yes, and prefer No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not No No Yes
Peter Patel-Schneider Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes No No Yes, and prefer Yes
Pierre-Antoine Champin Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not No No Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes
Andy Seaborne Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes, and prefer
Sandro Hawke Yes, but prefer not No No No Yes, and prefer No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not
Gavin Carothers Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes, and prefer
Ian Davis Yes, and prefer No No No No No No No
Steve Harris Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Eric Prud'hommeaux Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes Yes, but prefer not No Yes, but prefer not
Ivan Mikhailov Yes, and prefer No No No No No No No
David Wood No Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not Yes, but prefer not No Yes
Guus Schreiber Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
  2. Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
  3. Patrick Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
  4. Jean-François Baget <baget@lirmm.fr>
  5. Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@inria.fr>
  6. Olivier Corby <olivier.corby@sophia.inria.fr>
  7. Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
  8. Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
  9. Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
  10. Mohamed ZERGAOUI <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
  11. Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
  12. Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
  13. Dickson Lukose <dickson.lukose@mimos.my>
  14. Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
  15. Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
  16. Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
  17. Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
  18. William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
  19. Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>
  20. Matteo Brunati <m.brunati@webprofession.com>
  21. Scott Bauer <bauer.scott@mayo.edu>
  22. Jan Wielemaker <J.Wielemaker@vu.nl>
  23. Kiu Ching Chieh <cc.kiu@mimos.my>
  24. Adrien BASSE <adrien.basse@gmail.com>
  25. Mouhamadou THIAM <mouhamadou_bya@yahoo.fr>
  26. Gaoussou CAMARA <gaoussoucamara@gmail.com>
  27. Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
  28. Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
  29. Thomas Visel <tvisel@algebraixdata.com>
  30. Alexandre Morgaut <alexandre.morgaut@4d.com>
  31. Aidan Boran <aidan.boran@alcatel-lucent.com>
  32. Ig Ibert Bittencourt Santana Pinto <ig.ibert@gmail.com>

Send an email to all the non-responders.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Completed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.123 2013-09-26 09:46:56 dom Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to dom@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)