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

Re: Datatyping - abstract syntax - test case

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:22:54 +0300
Message-ID: <001201c25985$92f38330$864416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

If we are going to do this, then let's be sure that
http://foo.com/blarg and HTTP://FOO.COM/blarg are
both mapped to the same URIref node too, eh?

The RDF abstract syntax *cannot* provide representation
for values without groking the L2V mapping of specific
datatypes, and the nature and semantics of specific
datatypes are necessarily outside the scope of RDF.

We are not expecting RDF to know about datatypes anymore
so than we are expecting RDF to know about URI schemes.

All we are providing is an explicit and clear mechanism
for assertions to be made about specific datatype values
(whichever they might be, RDF can't say), which when combined 
with extra-RDF knowledge about the specific datatypes allows
applications to make determinations about those values, just
as applications which have extra-RDF knowledge about specific
URI schemes may make determinations about resources
that RDF itself cannot make (such that the above two
URIrefs denote the same thing).

I most certainly hope that we are *not* heading for
labeling typed literal nodes with values in the abstract
syntax, as I consider that heading for the rocks.

Lifejackets on, folks. Women and children to the boats

As far as I understood it, last Friday's concensus vote
was based on labeling typed literal nodes with a pairing
of datatype designation and lexical form, not with values.

If you are proposing that we pull that stake out of the
ground and do something different, I think you need to
argue in terms of fatal flaws in how it is specified
at present.


[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 50) 483 9453, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 September, 2002 12:05
Subject: Datatyping - abstract syntax - test case

> In Patrick's Part I a datatyped valued is represented in the graph as a
> pair: a URI and a unicode string in the lexical space.
> My take is that what we were really heading for is that in the abstarct
> syntax the graph node is labelled with the value.
> The test case is:
> <rdf:Description>
>   <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;deciaml">2.00</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> is equal (i.e. syntactically)
> <rdf:Description>
>   <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;deciaml">2.0</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> (I think it is also equal to
> <rdf:Description>
>   <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">2</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> but I would need to check the XSD specs)
> Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 07:22:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:00 UTC