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

Re: incomplete datatyping (was: Re: datatypes and MT)

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 13:27:07 -0800
Message-ID: <3BE9A72B.D75E7752@db.stanford.edu>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > > If we are going to use bnodes, I would rather write this as:
> > >
> > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber
> > > _x realPart _:y1
> > > _x imaginaryPart _:y2
> > > _:y1 xsd:number "1.0"
> > > _:y2 xsd:number "2.0"
> >
> > I'd prefer this representation too, not doubt.
> 
> But aren't you confusing data type with property here?

No, I'm not. It has been pointed out many times on this list that use of
rdf:value often leads to big trouble when some resources suddenly turn
out to denote the same thing. (Brian gave an example of such clash some
time ago.) Therefore, I avoid rdf:value completely until we dashed out
the basics of datatyping. 

Sergey


> Shouldn't it rather be:
> 
>   _x rdf:type ComplexNumber
>   _x realPart _:y1
>   _x imaginaryPart _:y2
>   _:y1 rdf:value  "1.0"
>   _:y1 rdf:type xsd:number
>   _:y2 rdf:value "2.0"
>   _:y2 rdf:type xsd:number
> 
> or better yet
> 
>   _x rdf:type ComplexNumber
>   _x realPart _:y1
>   _x imaginaryPart _:y2
>   _:y1 rdf:value  "1.0"
>   _:y1 rdf:type xsd:float
>   _:y2 rdf:value "2.0"
>   _:y2 rdf:type xsd:float
> 
> ???
> 
> Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 16:00:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:33 EDT