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

Re: why not take just the 2 ???

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:06:02 +0200
To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B88348AA.CFF4%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

[Response primarily for Jos, others feel free to skip]

On 2002-02-03 15:22, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:

>> There is already alot of negative opinion about
>> how the RDF datatyping proposals are referencing
>> XML Schema datatype URIs. I suspect that any
>> solution that uses anything other than the pre-
>> defined (or user defined) single URIs for each
>> datatype will not be acceptable.
> but this is meant for machines, no?

Humans will not be left out of the loop, and lots
of humans will be expressing knowledge manually
in RDF/XML even if assisted by an XML editor.

Ideally, yes, RDF is meant for machines, but we
do not yet live in an ideal world.

Complexity is also an issue for programmers who
need to create applications that will allow
machines to work with RDF encoded knowledge.

>> I think one key difference between the TDL and
>> S "philosophies" is that S wants/needs to use a
>> unique URI for each component of a datatype
>> in order to make the significance of those components
>> explicit in the representation, whereas TDL uses the
>> single URI of a datatype to define a context within
>> which the MT provides a consistent interpretation for
>> the lexical form (literal).
> if you (in TDL-global) only have the fact :Jenny :age "30"
> and *no* range information for :age then you have *no*
> interpretation for "30"

Correct, insofar as the RDF expressed knowledge is
concerned. But how does that change the validity or
applicability of a TDL interpretation?

The literal is either a typed data literal or not.

If it is, then the literal is a lexical form for some
unknown datatype.

Perhaps in the next second, an RDF schema with the
needed datatyping information will be loaded -- or
perhaps the absence of any determinable type will
lead the application to go looking for a schema that
provides it.

It's not a shortcoming of TDL that the type is not
known. How is the situation any different for S?

>> Multiple URIs, synonymous idiom-specific vocabularies,
>> etc. etc. may make the MT easier to write, but it
>> makes life in general much harder for the user, and
>> after all, at the end of the day, if RDF datatyping
>> is percieved to be too complicated, regardless of
>> how beautiful and correct the MT is, folks won't use
>> it. Eh?
> I don't think it makes life for machines any harder

See comment above. 

Humans have to express the knowledge. Humans have to
create the systems to use that knowledge. Humans are
the end benefactors of productive use of that knowledge.
Humans are in the loop everywhere.
Please forgive me if I seem to be treating anyone as
naiive about this -- I doubt if any of the WG members
do not fully understand and appreciate the human element
in all this, though it does seem that some give it more
focus and consideration than others.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2002 13:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC