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

RE: details of rdf:datatype?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:29:12 +0200
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEGDCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler
> Sent: 17 October 2002 08:14
> To: ext Jos De_Roo; ext Brian McBride
> Cc: Dan Connolly; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; Graham Klyne
> Subject: Re: details of rdf:datatype?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690,
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext Jos
> De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
> Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>;
> "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
> Sent: 16 October, 2002 19:16
> Subject: Re: details of rdf:datatype?
>
>
> > At 11:20 16/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > >Firstly, one cannot presume that all datatypes define a canonical
> > >representation for all values and thus that it is possible to obtain
> > >such a canonical representation, so basing anything on canonical
> > >representations is simply not feasible. Please stop referring to
> > >canonical lexical forms. They don't exist in RDF datatyping.
> >
> > Puzzled frown.  Have I lost the plot here?  It looks to me as
> though Jos is
> > describing an implementation strategy for value based
> entailments.  As far
> > as I'm concerned, that is a relevant contribution.
>
> Well, if it is based on the presumption that there is a canonical
> space defined for every rdfs:Datatype, then it is not addressing
> the full breadth of RDF Datatyping and as such will have incomplete
> utility.
>
> I was simply pointing this out.
>
> But of course, implementors are free to do as they like.
>
> Patrick
>
>

For any datatype one could define a canonical form if one so chose.
So requiring RDF datatypes is a possibility. (Technically I have required
certain transfinite type systems to invoke the axiom of choice! but I
suspect all realistic type systems are safely countable).

The text in the minority version is intended to utilize a canonical form if
one is provided, and not if not.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 03:29:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT