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

Re: DATATYPES: mental dump.

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:16:20 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:00 AM 11/12/01 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> > I think we'll see a lot of RDF usage like this:
> >
> >    _:Robby child:age    "12" .
> >    _:Robby child:weight "14" .
> >    _:Jenny child:age    "12" .
> >    _:Jenny child:weight "12" .
> >
> > i.e. things like number radix and units will implicit in the vocabulary
> > (properties) used.
>I believe the above representation could also be utilized in the S
>proposal (I think Pat and I are still dashing out this topic on another
>thread). In S, the literals "12" and "14" above would represent literal
>values, not masses in durations, and child:age would connect directly t2
>and s2 in the diagram. However, an application could have a built-in
>understanding that
>_:Robby child:age "12"
>somehow implies
>_:Robby IS:age        X
>X       IS:inMonth    Y
>Y       IS:inDecimal "12"
>Given this implicit knowledge, the only valid interpretation for the
>IS:age of Robby would be determined uniquely as d1, i.e. "one year". Of
>course, in this case the range of child:age would be rdfs:Literal and
>not IS:Durations. In other words, if CC/PP uses S, either instances
>could be kept "as is", or schema, but not both.

Ah, OK ... I'm warming to this, but I need to think some more.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 11:33:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:37 EDT