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

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

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:36:49 -0600
Message-Id: <v04210103b6b7142e2d80@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, connolly@w3.org, sandro@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider:
>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
> > 
>If there is going to be a change, then I vote for some short version of

These various choices seem to reflect subtly different attitudes to 
the language and what its expression 'mean'. If one is thinking about 
operations being applied to datastructures, then the :value and 
toString usages both make perfect sense, in slightly different ways. 
If one is thinking about parsing the expressions of the language from 
a kind of meta-perspective, then lexicalRepresentation makes perfect 
sense. (This is like the kind of 'case-grammar' perspective on 
English that would render "John sat on the mat" as "Happening with 
EventType=sat and Subject=John and Object=mat"). But neither of these 
make the expressions just plain *readable*, as though one were using 
the language rather than saying something about it.

This is supposed to be saying that a string  has something as its 
linguistic 'value', but the value comes first. In other words, it's 
saying that the string is a NAME for the thing. So how about 
rdf:nameIs, or (since this is being used with an equality sign which 
conveys the 'is' already) rdf:nameOf or rdf:nameFor ?

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 13:35:28 GMT

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