W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Fwd: problems with RDF datatyping

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:23:38 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160C9E@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@NineByNine.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@NineByNine.org]
> Sent: 17 January, 2003 14:30
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: rdf Core; pat hayes
> Subject: Re: Fwd: problems with RDF datatyping
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:32 AM 1/17/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> > From PFPS:
> >
> >>In trying to make the OWL semantics correspond to the RDF 
> semantics I came
> >>up with the following problems in RDF datatyping:
> >>
> >>1/ A datatype is an element of IR, because the RDF MT says 
> that datatypes are
> >>denoted by URI references.  However, rdf:XMLLiteral is said to be a
> >>datatype, but rdf:XMLLiteral is a URI reference.  Something 
> is wrong here.
> 
> I think we should say something like "rdf:XMLLiteral denotes 
> a datatype".

Hmmm.... I thought we did say that. If we don't we definitely
need to fix that before last call.
> >>It probably makes more sense to say that a datatype is a four-tuple,
> >>consisting of a URI reference, a lexical space, a value space, and a
> >>lexical-to-value mapping.
> 
> I'm not sure I fully understand this, but the final suggestion seems 
> reasonable to me.

Please see my comments for why I don't consider this reasonable.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 09:23:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:22 EDT