- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:16:43 +0200
- To: ext Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 0:36, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I see untidiness as far more invidious. Since literals are polymorphic,
> it is possible to create a "datatype" for persons and another one for
> names, so that literal "Martyn" may represent a person if it occurs in
> one context, or it may represent a person's name in another context.
> That's what I call invidious...
Hmmm....
Then TDL is invidious to its very core. The whole point of TDL
is that a given literal, e.g. "10" can represent different values
in different datatype contexts. In the context of xsd:integer
it is 10. In the context of xsd:string it is "10". In the
context of e.g. ex:binaryInteger it is 2. Etc. etc.
A literal in and of itself means nothing. It must have context
for its interpretation as a value.
A TDL pairing is a "literal-in-context" which denotes a value.
Thus, so long as we are cursed to have lexical forms in the graph,
we will have some degree of untidyness -- either untidy literals or
untidy bNodes with tidy literals hanging off of them.
Right?
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 17:15:33 UTC