W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Should rdf:value have a semantics??

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:43:03 +0200
Message-ID: <003201c29c3a$532d2920$2c80720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


> > I might argue that "miles" is in some sense more "principal" than the 
> > associated number 10;  e.g. as opposed to metres.
> > 
> > Another question, would it be wrong to write:
> >   ex:pieceOfWire rdf:value "10" .
> >   ex:pieceOfWire rdf:value "miles" .
> > ?
> 
> 
> I agree that determination of "principal" is in the mind of the 
> beholder

Yes, and that is the problem.

It has always struck me as rather dubious that we would define
(or preserve) vocabulary terms for which we provide no proper
account for in the MT.

I think it would be a fairly reasonable guideline that any
terms in M&S or earlier drafts of RDFS which are now not given
any explicit semantics, defining normative constraints on their 
usage, would be deprecated.

This does not immediately invalidate current use of those terms
but makes it clear that something "better" is required and that
should be defined outside the scope of RDF/RDFS proper.

As we have seen, there has (and likely will continue to be) alot
of confusion about the proper use and interpretation of collections,
rdf:value, rdfs:isDefinedBy, etc. 

Would there be substantial opposition in the WG to the idea of
deprecating all these legacy terms which are undefined or
underdefined in the MT?

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 03:43:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:48 EDT