W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2002


From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:59:17 +0200
To: ext Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
CC: <roland@scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
Message-ID: <B8802585.CE9D%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-01 0:22, "ext Roland Schwaenzl"
<Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> wrote:

>> Are you saying that "urn:xy:11" is some
>> form of URV  (e.g. like a 'tdl:') where 'xy' is
>> an integer datatype that takes base 2 lexical forms
>> (i.e. binary '11' = decimal '3')?
> Interesting, what you think about the urn.
> A verbose verbal interpretation should be: I better should have used
> rdf:ID="11", so let me modify
> the original example:
> Let online#11 denote a resource. That resource is supposed to live in the
> class denoted by 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer. When understood in this class a
> lexical represention
> of the resource is 3, which actually is a canonical lexical representation.

The catch may come if (and I'm thinking this may be desirable)
the local TDL idiom requires a blank node. If so, then your
example would be excluded from a TDL interpretation. That doesn't
prevent some application from inferring what it likes about
the type and lexical form of #11, and it may turn out that there
is no need to exclude URIref nodes from the local idiom, so
you may get your cake and be able to eat it too.

It would help, though, if your example was grounded in some
particular purpose. Otherwise, it's hard to fully appreciate
what the implications may be for one treatement or the other.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 03:58:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:04 UTC