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

Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:01:34 +0200
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B884991E.D25E%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-04 19:15, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

>> Issue B1:
>> =========
>> 
>> status: disputed by Sergey.  Sergey you owe us an explanation of why.
> 
> Perhaps Sergey's position is the same as mine...
> 
>> ..
>> 
>> two properties have to be used, <age> and <ageD>, in this example.
> 
> Yes, *if* one wants to use both idioms, one needs both sorts
> of properties.

Thank you. I'm glad we finally got that clarified.

> But I don't think most communities want to use both idioms.

Hmmm.... and what about that nice characteristic of RDF that
is supposed to allow us to syndicate knowledge from *different*
communities in order to synergenically obtain new knowledge
by inference or make decisions based on comparison of
knowledge from those disparate sources.

I'm sorry Dan but you continue to reflect a very closed-system
view of datatyping, such that knowledge will not flow freely
between systems and be used in contexts where the knowledge
creator never dreamed of.

I thought the whole point of RDF and the Semantic Web was
the free interchange of knowledge between disparate systems.

> For example, I expect Dublin Core (and maybe prism?) to
> recommend S-B exclusively; hence they only need <age>,
> not <agedD>.

Who are they to tell me or anyone which idiom I am to use?!

People must be free to use either idiom, and since folks
*will* be using both idioms, even if not in the same
knowledge base, there will *have* to be two versions of
every ontology, one for each idiom.

To get clarity and closure on this:

   ASSERTION: Use of both S/A+B idioms will require two versions
              of PRISM, DC, MARC, ONIX, etc., one version for
              each idiom, and adoption of S/A+B will require
              the maintainers of those ontologies to create
              and managae dual versions in order
              for their ontologies to be used with RDF by
              communities employing both idioms concurrently,
              or to merge RDF knowledge expressed using
              both idioms.

Do you (or does anyone) disagree?

If not, am I still the only one who can't live with this?

Sorry if I appear to be overstressing this, but I honestly
don't think very many folks have yet to appreciate the
ramifications of this, and they are huge.

>> I believe there is a agreement that this is a difference between the
>> two proposals. Indeed, it may be said that the main aim of TDL is
>> to avoid requiring different properties for these different idioms.
> 
> [Brian, you asked *why* I hold the position I do; I'm just
> about to get on an airplane, so I'm not likely to be able
> to phone you as you requested; I don't mind sharing my
> motivation with the WG, so...]
> 
> Yes, TDL seems to be an attempt to allow folks to use
> the name of something (e.g. "10") as that
> something (the integer after 9). I know that folks want
> to do this; they want to write
> 
> <book> dc:author "Dickens".
> 
> and
> <book> dc:author _:x.
> _:x contact:familyName "Dickens".
> 
> interchangeably. The bad news is: computers don't handle
> this sort of ambiguity the way people do. The TDL proposal
> may solve this problem for a privileged few classes
> (the XML schema datatypes) but it does not solve
> it for people, places, and other sorts of things.
> So it's harmfully misleading.

I honestly don't see how S does anything
different in that regard than TDL. The above
examples could easily have been writtten in S
with the same ambiguity.

>> Issue B5: Storage Requirements
>> ===============================
>> 
>> status: disputed.
>> 
>> TDL requires significantly more storage to implement.
> 
> Sergey got back on this one, no?
> 
> In short: you may not need to store the whole string
> lots of times, but you do need to store some sort
> of distinct identity for each occurence of a string.

We've already clarified that there are means to allow
TDL to support tidy literals, both by idiom as well
as MT. I believe that this is a non-issue, or at most
an issue nearing resolution.

C.f.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0001.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0314.html

Patrick


--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 13:00:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:03 EDT