Re: datatypes and MT

At 08:59 AM 11/7/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >  I, and I think many others, have certainly assumed that one can
> > write something like:
> >
> >      <ex:subj> <ex:prop> "10" .
> >
> > To express the idea (to an application that knows about the vocabulary)
> > that <ex:subj> has a property <ex:prop> with the integer value 10.
>
>I expected that folks wrote, in the schema for ex:prop:
>         ex:prop relates something to a numeral (i.e. a string)
>         which should be interpreted as an integer

Yes, that would be one way.  Another is that the knowledge is embedded in 
applications that process statements containing <ex:prop>.

I think I must be misunderstanding something here in what you are 
saying.  Previously, you responded to me:
[[[
> > I think we need to nail down the handling of simpler cases before getting
> > too involved in arcane syntax options.  By simpler cases, I mean how are we
> > to interpret simple RDF like this:
> >
> >    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me">
> >      <ex:shoeSize>10</ex:shoeSize>
> >    </rdf:Description>
>
>dirt simple:
>
>         <...#me> <...#shoeSize> "10".
>
> > and
> >
> >    <rdfs:Property rdf:about="http://example.org/shoesize">
> >      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="xsd:integer" />
> >    </rdfs:Property>
>
>You've got an inconsistency there. "10" isn't an integer.
]]]

My intent was that this was pretty much the same as I was trying to 
describe with my
   <ex:subj> <ex:prop> "10" .
example above, but more explicit about how the typing information was supplied.

> > E.g. what you are suggesting will break aspects of CC/PP and UAProf.
>
>Ouch; really?

Well, maybe... depends how the above issue works out.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 16:11:56 UTC