w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
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
Pat Hayes' email also gives some pros and cons that you might want to check.
Summary
| Choice | All responders | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes, 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:
| Ranks | All responders: |
|---|---|
| 1 | 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 | 1. Current state: tagged literals have no type. |
| 3 | 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. |
| 4 | 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. |
| 5 | 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 | 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. 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. |
| 8 | 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. |
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
- Antoine Zimmermann: last responded on 7, September 2011 at 18:18 (UTC)
- Ivan Herman: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 08:34 (UTC)
- Richard Cyganiak: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 09:08 (UTC)
- Lee Feigenbaum: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 12:39 (UTC)
- Jeremy Carroll: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 16:22 (UTC)
- Peter Patel-Schneider: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 17:03 (UTC)
- Pierre-Antoine Champin: last responded on 8, September 2011 at 17:52 (UTC)
- Andy Seaborne: last responded on 9, September 2011 at 08:23 (UTC)
- Sandro Hawke: last responded on 9, September 2011 at 11:11 (UTC)
- Gavin Carothers: last responded on 12, September 2011 at 22:56 (UTC)
- Ian Davis: last responded on 13, September 2011 at 12:03 (UTC)
- Steve Harris: last responded on 13, September 2011 at 12:23 (UTC)
- Eric Prud'hommeaux: last responded on 14, September 2011 at 15:24 (UTC)
- Ivan Mikhailov: last responded on 14, September 2011 at 15:57 (UTC)
- David Wood: last responded on 14, September 2011 at 16:33 (UTC)
- Guus Schreiber: last responded on 27, September 2011 at 16:16 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project