Re: my vote on the varieties of datatyped tagged literals

On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 07:02 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 22:46, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > So, that's what I mean by non-standard.  I mean, this doesn't look like
> > an XML datatype that people familiar with XML datatypes would consider a
> > proper XML datatype.
> 
> You mean just like owl:Real?

I'm not an expert on owl:real, but as I understand it: no.

The spec [1] says, "The owl:real datatype does not directly provide any
lexical forms."   But the word "directly" is important there: as I
understand it, owl:real simply has all the lexical forms of the types
it's a supertype of, like owl:rational and xsd:decimal.   For instance,
the OWL 2 text suite includes entries with example of using owl:real
literals, like http://owl.semanticweb.org/page/Owlreal-plus-oneOf .

    -- Sandro


[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers



> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> > 
> >>> In terms of code: with this design, we need a different API for language
> >>> tagged strings than for other data values, right?   We can't use .lexrep
> >>> to get the lexical representation, since there is none.  
> >> 
> >> I don't know what you're talking about. I'll quote the design again:
> >> 
> >> [[
> >> 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.
> >> ]]
> >> 
> >> Why does this require a different API for language-tagged strings?
> > 
> > I just can't get my head around the idea that a value like <"chat",
> > "fr"> would have a lexical representation ("chat") but that it wouldn't
> > be in the lexical space.
> > 
> > Also, it seems like a problem that the pair of lexical representation
> > and datatype does not convey all the information.
> > 
> > I'm totally willing to accept that there might be some elegant solution
> > in here; I just can't see it.
> > 
> >     -- Sandro
> > 
> >>> For my example
> >>> code snippets, your option 2c (which Ivan has labeled 2d) still looks
> >>> just like option 1, I think.
> >> 
> >> Yes – it doesn't require any string munging, which is an advantage.
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> Richard
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>>  - Sandro
> >>> 
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Richard
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 15:07:27 UTC