LC3 Responses/DB5

From OWL
Revision as of 09:33, 26 September 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: daniel@fgm.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0015.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

An RDF plain literal is not the same thing as a typed literal whose type is rdf:PlainLiteral. For example, "Family Guy"@en is a plain literal with a language tag, whereas "Family Guy@en"^^rdf:PlainLiteral is a typed literal whose type is rdf:PlainLiteral. In both cases the interpretation is the pair < "Family Guy" , "en" >. This distinction is necessary for backwards compatibility with RDF.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL


The third-to-last paragraph of section 2 of that document says:


     A plain literal is a string with an optional language tag [RDF].
     A plain literal without a language tag is interpreted in an RDF
     interpretation by itself.  A plain literal with a language tag
     can be written as "abc"@langTag, and is interpreted in an RDF
     interpretation as a pair < "abc" , "langTag" >.

But then the third paragraph of section 3 says:

    Lexical Space. An rdf:PlainLiteral lexical form is a string of
    the form "abc@langTag" where "abc" is an arbitrary (possibly
    empty) string, and "langTag" is either the empty string or
    a (not necessarily lowercase) language tag. ...

Why does the first have the at sign ("@") outside the quotes, but
the second has it inside?

Does the rdf:plainLiteral specification use the phrase "written as"
or the term "lexical form" in some strange sense?  (Normally, the
lexical form of something is the form in which it can be written.)


To: daniel@fgm.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0007.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The current formulation is correct, since "abc@" and "abc@langTag" are valid lexical forms of the rdf:PlainLiteral datatype. Please refer to the "rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals" specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rdf-plain-literal-20090611/) for more information and examples.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Boris Motik
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL


In the OWL 2 Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-syntax-20090611/,
section 5.7 says:

   * Literals of the form "abc@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral SHOULD be
     abbreviated in functional-style syntax ontology documents to
     "abc" whenever possible.
   * Literals of the form "abc@langTag"^^rdf:PlainLiteral where
     "langTag" is not empty SHOULD be abbreviated in functional-style
     syntax documents to "abc"@langTag whenever possible.

In particular, the at-sign ("@") characters are inside the double
quotes, instead of being after the quoted string.

Some of the subsequent examples have the same problem.