Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]

Thanks for the clarification, Tim. So long as we're talking
about doing stuff after parsing, then that's fine.

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 01 November, 2002 06:29
Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]


> > [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690,  
> > patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> >
> > > To me, using "^^"   makes it clear that ^^ is a syntactic thing
> > > whose semantics are in fact equivalent to "^"  except that
> > > the formal triples representation is different.
> > >
> > > So Jos, you can if you want dismantle the triple into two.
> > > You will have a semantically equivalent graph.
> >
> > Well surprise surprise. I guess my suspicions about ^^ were correct.
> >
> 
> If you suspicions were that RDF was to perverted by the addition of  
> extra triples in the definition of an RDF parser then you were wrong.    
> Don't panic!
> 
> 
> > I reiterate my opposition to the use of ^^ in the abstract syntax.
> >
> 
> I find the use of juxtaposition very messy for the parser, and  
> potentially
> confusing for users.  It is much safer in the syntax to use a piece of  
> punctuation.
> That syntax point is completely irrelevant to question in the rest of  
> your message.
> 
> 
> > A typed literal node may *not* be "dismantled" into
> > additional triples, even if it might be deemed to be semantically
> > equivalent to an expansion into a bnode with datatype property
> > (and I am not convinced that it is).
> 
> I am sorry, I clearly didn't distinguish well enough between things you
> do inside a parser and things you do outside.
> I was suggesting that one could do what Jos wanted outside the parser.
> 
> If you are not convinced that, for a given datatype, a property can  
> relate a member of the value space and a member of the lexical space,  
> then you must have thought of something I haven't thought of.
> 
> 
> > If an application wishes to define rules to infer those additional
> > triples, fine,
> 
> That is just what we are talking about here.  You can't stop Jos  
> treating his data
> in that way.
> 
> 
> >  but the ^^ delimiter does not function in any way
> > like ^ in N3.
> >
> 
> Exactly it does not.   It is syntax in the RDF spec, not a triple
> 
> If they had ben the same, then I would have suggested ^ not ^^.
> 
> > I would like either for the delimiter to be removed entirely or
> > for there to be an explicit statement that such "dismantling"
> > of the typed literal node is not licensed by the RDF specs.
> >
> 
> The RDF spec's job is to define the set of triples which corresponds to  
> a given serialization.
> Not to define what people do after they have got them.  Do not blur the  
> line.
> I was saying that Jos could do them *after* the RDF parsing stage.
> This draws away from RDF spec some criticsism of it being clumsy,
> demonstrating that it can be converted into a different form.
> 
> IMHO
> Tim
> 
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > -
> > * Next message: Patrick Stickler: "Issuette for tomorrow's aggenda"
> > * Previous message: Patrick Stickler: "Re: Datatyping literals:  
> > question and test cases"
> > * In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: n-triples for datatype values  
> > [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]"
> > * Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: n-triples for datatype values  
> > [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]"
> > * Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda  
> > for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]"
> > * Reply: pat hayes: "Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda  
> > for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]"
> > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
> > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
>

Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 03:10:08 UTC