W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2003

Re: testing that RDF datatypes can have more than one URI name

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:44:02 -0400
Message-Id: <200308180344.h7I3i2Al006880@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: www-archive@w3.org

> PS:  Note that this [1] can be used to defeat just about any scheme for special
> syntactic processing of XML literals in RDF/XML.

Jeremy's "Option 3" [2] does a purely syntactic treatment, including
xml:lang, where XML Literals look like perfectly normal
(string^^datatype) pairs by the time they get to N-Triples.  That
wouldn't get tripped up here, as far as I can tell.

More deeply, do you have a simple explanation of why it doesn't work
to have two kinds of datatypes -- language sensitive and language
insensitive ones?   I'm not sure the simplest way to arrange it, but
   - the lexical space of each datatype is either a set of Unicode
     strings (exclusive) OR a set of pairs of <Unicode string,
     language string>.  (That is, the range of L is the union of the
     set of Unicode strings and the set of string/string pairs.  The
     domain of L2V(xsd:int) is the set of Unicode strings like "0",
     "1", etc.  The domain of L2V(rdf:XMLLiteral) is the set of pairs
     of Unicode strings like <"<a></a>", "en-US">, <"<b></b>,
     "en-US">, etc.
   - the lexical space of each datatype is a pair (as above); for
     many datatypes the second item in the pair does not play a 
     role in L2V(d); for all x,y,z: L2V(xsd:int)(x,y)=L2V(xsd:int)(x,z)

These are certainly more complicated, and perhaps offensively so, but
they hardly seem impossible or even impractical.  I'm no expert in
this kind of abstraction; am I missing something important?

     -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Aug/0084
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 23:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:27 UTC