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

Re: datatypes and MT

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:03 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C059@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


>   <rdf:Description>
>     <eg:size rdf:type="http://example/integer" eg:hexint="10"/>
>   <rdf:Description>

I think that this explicit identification of base separate
from the lexical form itself fails to recognize that this is an
issue that has been addressed by programming languages and other 
formal languages for decades.

The lexical form of a data type is just that, the lexical form,
and should be interpretable as-is, without any further information
other than the data type itself.

I.e.

  <eg:size rdf:type="http://example/integer" rdf:value="0x10"/>

Which defines an integer that happens to employ a lexical form
expressed in hexidecimal. No need for an explicit 'eg:hexint'
designation.

Further, using a property such as 'eg:hexint' does not facilitate
generic processing of knowledge based solely on RDF and RDFS
defined semantics, preventing an application from locating the
actual "rdf:value" of a property without understanding the specific
ontology used for classifying lexical values.

Lexical characteristics should be embodied in the lexical 
representation, and should not need explicit qualification in
the graph, and the literal value of a property should IMO always be
generically obvious in the graph, even if none of the qualifying
or typing semantics is understood.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 01:32:26 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:29 EDT