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

Re: Dublin Core, the Primer and the Model Theory

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:44:15 +0200
To: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2B28658D.CD4BFF79-ONC1256BBB.007AE80E@agfa.be>

> My view is that adopting a datatyping proposal that accommodates the ways
> that application designers feel comfortable with will have a big effect on
> RDF's eventual fate.  I have not personally found the arguments that lead
> us to require tidy literal interpretations to be compelling.  That this
> approach leads to characterizations of the Dublin Core approach as
> "nonsense" is indicative (to me) that it's out of step with thinking of
> application designers in the large.
> #g
> --
> [1] http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html

I feel *very* concerned when reading

Neither of these forms, by themselves, fixes the value of the
literal. However, applications are of course free to use 'bare'
literals, and to rely on string-matching to resolve questions of
identity. Such use amounts to a decision to understand a bare
literal as denoting its own label (and to understand rdfs:dlex
as identity). It would be risky to rely on such a convention to
perform extensive RDFS inferences, however, as this assumption
can be overridden by other datatyping information, in general,
so any inferences based on this assumption would need to be
re-checked and perhaps revised if datatype information were
added to the RDFS graph. Applications that do not make extensive
inferences about identity should function in this way without
meeting serious problems.

BTW, this assumes untidy literal nodes. With a few deft tweaks
to the MT we could manage with tidy literals, in fact: but if they
were ever allowed to be subjects of triples, that would completely
kill the tweaks and we would have to allow untidy literals again,
so I wonder if it is worth it.

and I remain confident with the current MT

Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 18:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:58 UTC