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

Re: Question about S

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:52:24 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B85E1528.AD24%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-03 13:45, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


>> Then can you provide an alternate example that does? I'm
>> presuming that somehow, somewhere, we need to know that "10"
>> is a member of the lexical space of xsd:integer. How is that
>> defined in S if not as above?
> 
> Well, this might (for some appropriate definition of lex:integer):
> 
>    Bob ex:age _:1 .
>    _:1 s:integer "10" .
>    s:integer rdfs:range lex:integer .
> 
> [...]

Fair enough. Clearly the S idiom provides a means to define
a pairing of lexical form and data type, but I don't see any
of the S idiom variants proposed thus far as being nearly as
economical as the P, DAML, or U idioms. I.e.

   Bob ex:age "10" .
   ex:age rdfs:range xsd:integer .

or

   Bob ex:age _:1 .
   _:1 rdf:value "10" .
   _:1 rdf:type xsd:integer .

or

   Bob ex:age <xsd:integer:10> .


and the P and DAML idioms are currently in use and understood
by (presumably) a non-trivial body of the RDF community, so why
adopt yet another idiom if the present ones do the job? Especially
when those idioms demand a proliferation of (unnecessary) URI sets
where a single data type URI is sufficient?

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, 7 January 2002 01:36:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:52 EDT