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

Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 15 Feb 2002 09:03:54 -0600
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1013785435.19337.43.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 02:14, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> On 2002-02-15 7:04, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 22:58, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> Latest version of the datatype summary document now available at
> >> 
> >> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html
> > 
> > Where's S-B?
> There is no S-B datatyping idiom.

???? yes, there is. Perhaps it's not described
in that document, but there is such an idiom.

> But did you mean S-A?


> If you use the S-B like idiom, where the literal is the
> direct object of the property,

Yes, that's what I mean by S-B.

> then you are simply not
> using any datatyping.

Your repeated use of argument by assertion is tiresome.

But I can play that game too:

Yes, S-B is a perfectly reasonable datatyping idiom.

> The literal is the literal is the
> literal and it does not denote (insofar as RDF is concerned)
> any typed value (that's what you wanted, right? "W3C" is
> "W3C" wherever it occurs as the direct literal object of
> a property).

Yup. All I want to do is constrain which literals
can be the value of some property.

> Some external application may impose some proprietary
> typed interpretation on it, but any such typing is
> non-portable and outside the scope of RDF.


> Thus
>   _:work dc:date "2002-02-14" .
> does not attribute a date value to _:work, only
> a literal that some application, based on the defined
> semantics of dc:date, may interpret as a date value,
> if its able to grok the meaning of the mystery lexical
> representation used.


> To RDF, it's just a literal. It's not a date.


> > i.e. what name are we giving to the class
> > of lexical representations of dates, so we can
> > use them in range constraints, ala...
> > 
> > dc:date rdfs:range rdfdt:date.lex.
> > 
> > _:work dc:date "2002-02-14".
> You would use the rdf:drange property to specify
> that dc:date expects/requires/has a typed value
> of e.g. xsd:date

No, I wouldn't. Please don't put words
in my mouth.


> Do to RDF datatyping, you have three choices:

Again, argument by assertion.

I have a choice to use S-B whether this WG
endorses it or not. If this WG endorses
it, I'm likely to get more interoperability;
I'd like that.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 10:04:33 UTC

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