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

Re: Oh my GOD, another datatype document.

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:03:40 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8873C9C.DA35%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-06 18:04, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:


>> My question is about the lack of an explicit triple giving the dType, this
>> was one of my problem cases in the TDL model theory.
> 
> The whole point of the 'ranging' semantic condition is to allow
> <range> info to entail <dtype> info, so that if the 'local' idiom
> works then the 'global' one will as well (though you have to do some
> extra inference, of course). It works for all the cases that use
> bnodes, but it doesn't work very well for the inline-literal case.
> 
> Thats also why one needs to use a separate namespace (or some
> equivalent trick) to stop having too many possible leaks from
> rdfs:range to rdf:type. If we only used local typing there wouldnt be
> any real need for that.
> 
> Pat


If we went with the revised global idiom that is a derivative
of the local idiom with rdf:type optional, but with the bNode
I.e.

   Bob ex:age _:1 .
   _:1 rdf:value "30" .

Then can we also get away with rdf:type rather than rdf:dtype?

If so, then I think that's another point in favor of the
convergence proposal, since we don't have to add any new
vocabulary to RDF at all.

Yes? No?

Cheers,

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 Wednesday, 6 February 2002 13:02:27 EST

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