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

Re: Proposal for abstract syntax representation of inline literals (was Re: weekly call for agenda items)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:48:31 +0300
Message-ID: <001d01c25b0a$b7e31b70$864416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>



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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Sent: 13 September, 2002 11:22
Subject: Re: Proposal for abstract syntax representation of inline literals (was Re: weekly call for agenda items)


> 
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> > We really need to be careful to keep separate the abstract graph
> > from the application specific representation, which I feel is
> > getting all mixed up here.
> >
> > ASSERTION:  The abstract graph should capture the statements made
> >             in the RDF/XML, in the original language of those
> >             statements.
> 
> I'd love to know what "original anguage" means, because it seems to me
> on a first glance (my reading, anyway) that this assertion is probably
> false.

Meaning, if someone expresses a statement using specific URIrefs,
literal strings, or other explicit names in the RDF/XML, those
same URIrefs, literal strings, and other names should be preserved
in the abstract graph, not mapped to "something else".

Just as it would IMO be unnacceptable for the abstract graph
to label a node as http://foo.com/blargh when the URIref
specified in the RDF/XML was http://FOO.COM/blargh, I also 
consider it unacceptable for the abstract graph to label a node
with ten if the RDF/XML said <... rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">0010</...>
or even to label the node with <xsd:integer>"10". The original
language used the lexical form "0010" and that should be reflected
in the abstract graph.

Applications are free to do what they will with the abstract
graph, but *every* application should base its behavior and
internal representation on the same exact abstract graph,
which should unambiguously and accurately reflect the terms
used in the original RDF/XML. Whether an application religiously
mirrors the abstract graph in its internal representation, or
does something radically different is no business of ours, in
defining what the standardized abstract graph contains.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 13 September 2002 05:48:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:00 EDT