W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: rdf:value backwards? [was: a few issues...]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:50:14 -0500
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010218145014U.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: rdf:value backwards? [was: a few issues...]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:26:30 -0600

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [...]
> > 3.  Using the property rdf:value to link from a point in the value
> >     space (eg 10) to a point in the lexical space (eg "10") seems
> >     completely backwards.
> 
> Er... I think I remember how it got to be this way...
> 
> 
> Since we're deciding whether to invest in the name rdf:value
> or not, now is a good time to consider alternatives.
> (I copy www-rdf-comments (a) to record the design
> rationale for rdf:value as it is, and (b) to provide
> an alternative should this issue be opened again
> in the new RDF Core WG).
> 
> Probably a better choice would be toString, as in
> 
> [[[
>  public String toString()
> 
>      Returns a string representation of the object. In general, the
> toString method
>      returns a string that "textually represents" this object. 
> ]]]
> 
> --        Class java.lang.Object
> http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.1/docs/api/java.lang.Object.html#toString()

If there is going to be a change, then I vote for some short version of
lexicalRepresentation.

peter
Received on Sunday, 18 February 2001 14:52:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:27 GMT