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

RE: A basis for convergence and closure?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:57:26 -0000
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEPOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I read Patrick's proposal as:

1:  Replace rdf:type with rdf:dType for datatyping.
2:  Use S-P (or TDL global) allowing 0, 1 or more rdf:dType arcs.
3:  Use Pat's doublet approach to fix MT (bNode denotes value not pair).


This presents the following less controversial issues:

4:    What to do with simple triples <subj> <prop> "string" ?
5:    Do we allow S-A idiom?

May I also suggest that:

6:    We replace rdfs:range with rdf?:dRange for datatyping.
7:    Should we rename rdf:value as rdf?:dValue?

====

Expanding 4: into yes/no questions is made easier by the existence of the
syntactic transform.

Let us suppose that we already have some xslt that transforms simple triples
into a triple pair using rdf:value. See:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0369.html

Then the choices are:

8:    Is the syntactic transform applied by default or not?
9:    Is there any standard syntactic way of indicating to (not) apply the
transform?
10:   If the syntactic transform is not applied then is the untransformed
triple just treated as in M&S with no datatyping?



10 is a critical question because most of the heat has been about S-B versus
the TDL global idiom (e.g. the tidiness question). If we say yes to 10, we
say that M&S is right and both S-B and TDL are wrong. A dumb triple is
simply a dumb triple with no datatyping, and no number of other triples can
change it.

An example of such a dumb triple would be:

For:

<Jenny> <age> "10".

then the datatyping note says nothing about the type of Jenny's age. If
there is a range (or dRange) constraint then this is ill-formed.


I hope we can all agree on 1,2, 3 and 10(yes).

I hope we can all live with any combinations of yeses and noes on 5, 6, 7, 8
and 9.

Jeremy


Patrick:
>    Take TDL (sans present MT) with its present local idiom,
>    is also the S-P idiom (apart from the designation of the
>    datatype URI)
>
>    Replace the global idiom with Jeremy's proposed bNode
>    global idiom, which is a derivative of the local idiom
>    with rdf:type omitted
>
>    Make literals tidy (untidyness is born by the bNodes)
>
>    Extend the RDF vocabulary to include the property rdf:dtype
>    which is an rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type, and which is
>    to be used by both local and global idioms (I think this is
>    a more conservative choice than adopting a completely separate
>    vocabulary per Pat's recommendation)
>
>    State for the benefit of the XML Schema community that
>    datatype URIs in this solution denote the whole datatype
>    as defined by the datatype owner with no extension or
>    modification. The datatype simply serves as the context of
>    interpretation for a typed literal.
>
>    Fix/extend/refine the TDL MT to take these changes into
>    account and make it all work ;-)
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 09:57:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:05 EDT