- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:43:58 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Oh dear, I haven't being paying attention properly. Apologies. >Something was niggling me about this, but I now think I see what it >was: > >The datatyping extension is both syntactic and semantic. As a >syntactic extension, it naturally belongs with the core language It needs to use rdfs:Datatype to signal a recognized dtype, that's essentially syntactic. >. But as a semantic extension, it fits more comfortably (IMO) with >the schema material. Hmmm... I don't know what to suggest as a >solution. Wait.... .solution? What exactly is the problem here? > (DanC's approach, which we turned down, starts to look more attractive.) > >That's not helpful... thinks... the only thing I can think of that >seems reasonably coherent is to bring the datatype URI into the core >(rdf:), even if it is "adding a new term that has a meaning". It >would not be the first such term in the core language; e.g. we >already rdf:type, which has some defined semantics in an >RDF-interpretation. I don't follow you here. Did you mean to say in an RDFS-interpretation? Because that wouldnt really be accurate. > >Is there any reason why a datatyped-interpretation has also to be an >RDFS-interpretation? No deep reason. Its tricky to say much without mentioning rdfs:Dataype and rdfs:Literal , is all. I think we discussed having rdf:Datatype and rejected it for some W3C procedural reason (??). Pat > >#g >-- > >At 05:53 PM 11/8/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > >> >>>Dan Connolly said: >>> >>> I see >>> rdfs:XMLLiteral >>> >>> in >>> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20Model%20Theory_Oct_draft.html >>> >>> That should be rdf:XMLLiteral, right Dave? >> >>No, we agreed rdfs:XMLLiteral >> >>I noted this danger earlier this week. >> >>> eek... it's there in the syntax editor's draft >>> too: >>> >>> If literal-language is the empty string then the value is the >>> concatenation of """ (1 double quote), the value of the literal-value >>> accessor and ""^^<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral>" (1 >>> double quote). >>> >>> -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ >> >>It is in the soon to published WD too. >> >>> Let's please be careful... there is no >>> dependency on RDFS from RDF. >> >>Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some >>description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for >>building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick >>them in RDFS namespace. >> >> >>> I thought we could get away with a combined >>> model theory spec, at least for a while. >>> But I think that time is ending. >>> >>> And I'm starting to wonder about the primer... >>> ah; the primer is cited non-normatively >>> from that syntax draft; as long as we >>> do that, it can have both RDF and RDFS. >> >> >> >>Dave > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 15:43:36 UTC