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

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:38:47 +0200
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF382967DF.C166BF00-ONC1256C59.0065D4B1-C1256C59.00666D2F@agfa.be>


oops... forgot to say that we think that even if it
would be described with extra triples e.g.
  <#Jenny> <#age> [ xsd:integer "10" ] .
or
  _:x <#name> [ dt:string "chat"; xml:lang "fr" ] .
an application is actually not forced to store the
triples in between the [ and ] in case there is
a (set of) unambiguous properties in there
but instead could use them to construct a single
*function* term or just store them as a [ whole ] term
so why not use above as syntax for typed literals???
(we have been using this trick over the past year
or so, but actually we store both...)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                   
                    Jos De_Roo                                                                                     
                                         To:     "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>                   
                    2002-10-21           cc:     "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dave Beckett"                  
                    02:26 PM             <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>,           
                                         w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>              
                                         Subject:     Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore   
                                         WG   Telecon            2002-10-18](Document link: Jos De_Roo)            
                                                                                                                   



> > [...]
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   <a> <b> "foo"<dt1> .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The latter is easier to parse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh! yeah verily.
> > > >
> > > >I was also wondering about that myself for similar reasons but
didn't
> > > >expect anyone else was worrying about such things, and wasn't going
> > > >to propose it.
> > > >
> > > >+1 then
> > >
> > > I think that gives you enough of a mandate to do it that way in what
you
> > > write up.
> >
> > I understood DanC wanted something with a separator
> > in between, e.g. <a> <b> "foo"^^<dt1>
> > I then wonder where the possible langstring would
> > fit, is it then "chat"-fr^^xsd:string or in N-Triples
> > "chat"-fr^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string> ?
>
> This is still going to be a single node, right? Even when
> N3 processes it?
>
> I'm not an N3 expert, but I'm presuming the above ^^ syntax
> is not meant to force some kind of expansion into triples or
> any other structure in terms of the abstract syntax, right?

in that proposal it is a single node
(which is not my own preference as you know;
why else do we have RDF, interpretation props,
etc.; having now up to 4 pieces of information
in one node i.e. XML bit, lexical form, lang
string and datatype-uri, not to mention the
(un)allowable combinations is not very kiss)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 14:39:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:28 EDT