W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: heading toward datatyping telecon

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:12:23 +0000
Message-ID: <3BE18277.7070702@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

Sergey Melnik wrote:

> Folks (esp. Pat),
> I'd like to keep the fruitful momentum around datatyping.



> However, I
> think the datatyping discussion needs some well-defined deliverables.
> One of them could be to specify how XML Datatypes (at least the
> primitive ones) should (or SHOULD) be used in RDF. 

As I see it the following deliverables are related to this discussion:

   o the core RDF specs, specifically the model theory, schema and the primer are
     all affected
   o from the charter:
          provide an account of the relationship between RDF and the
          XML family of technologies (particularly Schemas and

We got into this by way of trying to understand what literals are in RDF, 
looking first at xml:lang and then at rdf:parseType="Literal".  It doesn't seem 
reasonable to make a decision about those issues in isolation from datatyping 

I think the expectation is that the second of these deliverables would be a W3C 
note, not a normative document.  Is that what you had in mind Sergey?

>I'd like to suggest
> that we vote on this deliverable next Friday.

As I recall, you accepted an action from the chair to write up, for circulation 
and review by the community, an approach to datatyping in RDF.  Checking


no action is recorded :(  We can formalise that this week.

> <SUG2> was to focus on representing typing info in the triple
> structure. To my knowledge, there haven't been any public objections
> so far. Several schemes discussed on the list recently were in synch
> with SUG2. It seems that we are already going down the SUG2 path, so
> maybe voting is not even necessary - but it would be nice to do so for
> the record.

I have been concerned about the implementation costs of the triples approach, 
but I'd like to have some real implementation experience to back that up with. 
I do know that Jena's current implemenatation of reification, where it tries to 
not store the 4 triples separately, but just store the statement once, with an 
isReified flag, is unsatisfactory.  I'm nervous that we'll be creating  a 
similar problem here.

Jeremy's post of Andy Seaborne's comments is in a similar vein.

However, if I've groked what Pat is upto correctly, then I think I can see how 
to address these implementation concerns.  So going down the triples route is ok 
with me.  I do think we will need to get real implementation experience though.

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 12:19:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC