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

Re: XMLLiteral belongs in RDF namespace, not RDFs

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:43:58 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b40b9f322015d0c@[65.217.30.130]>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:02 EDT