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

Re: email straw poll: literal semantics proposals

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:01:21 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021007235208.0396cec0@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I've not had any further response from CC/PP, so I'll assuming for now they 
are not too concerned about this issue.  I think the CC/PP spec will need 
some refinement whatever the outcome.

B: 2    (rdfs:format, no datatype "interpretation" properties)

C: 3    (rdf:datatype typed literals)

D: 2    (C + Mid-range typing)

F: 3    (value semantics)

BUT, I'll also note that my score for B would increase to 4 for if it was 
clear that datatype URIs could be used as "interpretation properties".  In 
RDF, that would mean things like this would be possible:

[[
          <prf:displayWidth>
             <rdf:Description>
                <xsd:integer>604</xsd:integer>
             </rdf:Description>
          </prf:displayWidth>
          <prf:displayHeight>
             <rdf:Description>
                <xsd:integer>200</xsd:integer>
             </rdf:Description>
          </prf:displayHeight>
]]

or just:

[[
          <prf:displayWidth xsd:integer="604" />
          <prf:displayHeight xsd:integer="200" />
]]

#g
--

At 05:39 PM 10/7/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>I would like to take an email straw poll of the WG regarding the options 
>for semantics of literals we currently have on the table.  For each of the 
>attached options, please could you give a score to indicate your 
>preferences.  I would like to have a strong indication of the sentiment of 
>the WG by Tuesday evening.
>
>  o Unnacceptable proposals should be given a score of 0.  Please indicate 
> what absolute requirement(s) are not satisfied
>
>  o Other proposals should be ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 being most 
> preferred.  Give options with equal preference equal scores.
>
>Please note that proposal B includes retracting the decision to have 
>datatype values in the graph, i.e. retracts the
>
>   <foo:age rdf:datatype="xsd;integer">10</foo:age>
>
>construct.
>
>
>
>Proposal B:
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
>     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
>     <rdfs:format rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>The object of an age property denotes a string literal [*] from the 
>lexical space of xsd:integer.
>
>Proposal C:
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
>     <foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Film">
>     <foo:title>10</foo:title>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>
>The object of the age property denotes a member of the value space of 
>xsd:integer.  The object of the title property denotes a string literal[*].
>
>Proposal D:
>
>   <rdf:datatype rdf:property="&foo:age" rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal"/>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
>     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Johnny">
>     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>Proposal D is proposal C with some syntactic sugar (the rdf:datatype 
>declaration) so that it is not necessary to put an rdf:datatype attribute 
>on every use of the age property.
>
>Proposal F:
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
>     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;decimal"/>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>The object of an age property denotes an integer from the value space of 
>xsd:decimal.
>
>[*] A string literal is an old style RDF literal which consists of a 
>unicode string and language identifier.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 18:57:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:22 EDT