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

Re: Abstract data model update - discussion

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:17:31 +0300
Message-ID: <004301c262e2$0c2fb7e0$d74416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 21 September, 2002 13:51
Subject: Abstract data model update - discussion


> 
> 
> well I started thinking about my action to update the abstract data model.
> When I get round to it, there are some choices I need to make that well 
> inevitably be controversial.
> 
> This message is to raise those issues for discussion now.
> 
> Issue 1
> ======
> Can XML Literals be datatyped?
> In RDF/XML is this legal:
> 
> <rdf:Description>
>   <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&eg;foo" rdf:parseType="Literal">
>   the value <em>ha</em>
>  </eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> I am intending to disallow this.

Fair enough. I still thing that datatyping XML literals with
complex datatypes would not be a problem, and likely helpful
(and more consistent) but we can always add it later...

It's not critical to do it now.

> Issue 2
> ======
> Does the literal label of a datatyped literal include the lang tag?
> I am intended to allow this - bowing to pressure from Patrick and Pat (against 
> my better? judgment), but note that then without the xsd engine, RDF alone 
> cannot conclude that american Jenny and Italian Ginevra have the same age.
> 
> <rdf:RDF xml:lang="it">
> <rdf:Description  rdf:ID="Ginevra">
>   <eg:name>Ginevra</eg:name>
>   <eg:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">10</eg:age>
> </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en-us">
> <rdf:Description  rdf:ID="Jenny">
>   <eg:name>Jenny</eg:name>
>   <eg:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">10</eg:age>
> </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>

Actually, RDF alone, without any further knowledge of XML Schema
datatypes, *can* determine that Ginevra and Jenny both have
the same age, since the RDF MT will know that xml:lang does not
participate in the L2V mapping and that since both typed literal
nodes define the same exact pairing (xsd:int, "10") then the RDF MT
can conclude that they denote the same value (whatever that value
is).

Now, if we had "10" in the first case and "010" in the second case,
then no, RDF alone could not determine equality or inequality.

As for the name values, I'm presuming that there is an implicit
datatype for these of xsd:string, in which case, these will never
equate to the same as far as the datatyping is concerned.

Some extra-RDF application layer may be able to examine pairs of
language qualified names and decide if they are in some way
"equivalent" (e.g. per common translation practices, etc.) but
insofar as xsd:string is concerned, different lexical forms map
to different values, irregardless of any other relationships,
such as language translation, etc.

So there's really no problem here.

> Issue 3
> ======
> How untidy is the graph?
> Options range from saying nothing (so that there maybe multiple occurrences of 
> conceptually tidy nodes [e.g. URI labelled ones] with the same label - this 
> then leaves Pat to do the necessary tidying); to an extreme syntactic version 
> of WG decisions in which URI and datatyped literal nodes are tidied and 
> untyped literal nodes are untidy.
> I think I prefer the latter for the following reasons:
> - the WG (and the community) has a general tendency to prefer syntactic 
> expression of semantic truths where possible (hence the damp squib of my 
> attempt to separate syntactic and semantic tidiness)

I like the option of treating inline literals the same as typed literals,
by using a systemID (similar to that used as a nodeID for blank nodes)
to denote the implicit datatype, and then saying that
all nodes are tidy by label. This captures the semantic untidyness in 
the unique systemID of the implicitly typed literal and makes the issue
of syntactic tidyness simple -- everything is tidy.

Thus:

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Jenny">
       <age>10</age>
    </rdf:Description>
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Judy">
       <age>25</age>
    </rdf:Description>

gives us

   <#Jenny> <#age> _:x"10" .
   <#Judy>  <#age> _:y"25" .

and later, if there is a range assertion for the age property,
we can apply a MT closure rule such that

IF the graph contains the triples:
   ddd rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
   ppp rdfs:range ddd .
   sss ppp _:x"LLL" .
THEN
   I(_:x"LLL") = I(ddd"LLL") 

This is outlined in greater detail in section C.2 of Part 2 of the 
restructured document. 

> Issue 4:
> =======
> Can an untyped literal be the object of two triples?
> I intend to answer "NO". (Strict untidiness of untyped literals).

I agree.

> Such *strictly* untidy literals do not need to be named in N-triples and 
> leaves implementors with less to do. Also permitting untyped literals to 
> occur as the object of multiple statments reintroduces the serilization 
> problems that we have seen with bNodes (fixed for bNodes with rdf:nodeID - 
> which doesn't immediatly generalize because of the empty property element 
> production).
> 
> A test case is:
> 
> <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://example/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#subj">
>     <eg:prop rdf:ID="reify">literal</eg:prop>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> does entail
> 
> <rdf:RDFxml:base="http://example/">
>   <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#reify">
>     <rdf:object>literal</rdf:object>
>   </rdf:Statement>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#subj">
>     <eg:prop>literal</eg:prop>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> but neither entails
> 
> <rdf:RDFxml:base="http://example/">
>   <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#reify">
>     <rdf:object rdf:nodeID="blank"/>
>   </rdf:Statement>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#subj">
>     <eg:prop rdf:nodeID="blank"/>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> 
> that is the untyped literal node created for the reification is a different 
> literal node than that created for the triple itself.

I don't see why this is necessary. Already, parsers have to ensure
that the systemID of a blank node in a statement correspond to the
label of the same node in the reification. I see no reason why inline
literals need be treated differently, or pose any additional burden.

I.e. inline literals are just bnodes with some extra stuff in the label.

All the machinery is there to deal with bnodes, just extend it to address
inline literals, preserving the extra label content.

If the label of the inline literal in the triple is _:x"LLL" then so should
the label of the inline literal in the reification.

> If the object is a typed literal or a uriref node then the usual tidiness 
> rules would have resulted in the entailment above.

True.

> Issue 5
> ======
> reacting to xml:lang=""
> I intend to make the lang component of a literal compulsory, defaulting to "".
> (I suggest ntriple does not need to include an empty lang tag)
> 
> Issue 6
> ======
> Are RDF XML Literals tidy or untidy.
> They are untyped inline literals, so I will make them untidy.
> However we haven't formally decided that.
> Test case 
> 
> 
> <rdf:RDFxml:base="http://example/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#s1">
>     <eg:prop1>literal</eg:prop1>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#s2">
>     <eg:prop2>literal</eg:prop2>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>

Did you mean to include parseType="Literal" for
prop1 and prop2 above?

> does not entail
> 
> <rdf:RDFxml:base="http://example/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#s1">
>     <eg:prop1 rdf:nodeID="b" />
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#s2">
>     <eg:prop2 rdf:nodeID="b" />
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>

I prefer this, but N-Triples will probably need some tweaking
to make the boundary between the systemID and XML flag distinct,
possibly choosing some other syntactic term as the XML flag, 
which does not begin with a name character, e.g. '!' as in

   _:x!"<x>yz</x>"-en

> 
> 
> SUMMARY
> =========
> 
> Thus I am imaging that a literal in ntriple will need to show:
> 
> A lang tag (if not "")
> A string
> Either "xml" or a datatype URI or nothing.
> 
> It will not need to show 
> - both xml and a datatype at the same time
> - both a literal and a node identifier at the same time
> - any sort of unknown datatype (datatypes are always URIrefs).

How will you capture the untidyness of inline literals in N-Triples
without systemIDs/nodeIDs? 

Having simply the literal without a unique nodeID suggests to me
syntactic tidyness for non-explicitly-typed literals. And since
there is already confusion about the syntactic/semantic tidyness
or untidyness of inline literals, having a pedantically explicit
untidy syntactic representation will help avoid any further
confusion.

Also, as has been pointed out in the case of reification, we
really do need to indicate which exact inline literal node is
being refered to in the reification, and that means that each
occurrence of an inline literal needs a unique label, and the
obvious way to do that IMO is to use a systemID in place of
a URIref to denote the implied datatype.

So, we'd have (in N-Triples):

   inline literal                              _:a"foo"
   inline literal with xml:lang                _:b"foo"-en
   typed literal                     <&xsd;string>"foo"
   typed literal with xml:lang       <&xsd;string>"foo"-en
   xml literal                                _:c!"<h1>foo</h1>"
   xml literal with xml:lang                  _:d!"<h1>foo</h1>"-en

and if we choose to do so:

   typed xml literal                 <&xhtml;h1>!"<h1>foo</h1>"
   typed xml literal with xml:lang   <&xhtml;h1>!"<h1>foo</h1>"-en

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 05:18:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:02 EDT