W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:06:39 -0400
Message-ID: <014501c230bf$d5b65ba0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 08:53 AM 7/12/02 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >The danger in interpreting this idiom in any way other than
> >
> >age = "10"
> >
> >is non-monotonicity. That is in the absence of _some other triples_ i.e.
a
> >schema, the object of the age predicate is the literal string "10".
>
> [A late response to your comment;  I've not been following closely, of
> late, and am now catching up email on a long plane flight.]
>
> A possible interpretation, which doesn't incur non-monotonicity, is that
> Jenny's age is some value that can be represented by the string
> "10".  Which doesn't really tell you anything about Jeny's age in the
> absence of datatype info (hence avoiding problems of non-mon).
>

Yes. But this seems to say that such literals are "tidy", no?

This is what I mean by suggesting that a literal denotes a _set_ of things,
i.e.

"10" =>

{ "10", xsd:decimal"10", xsd:binary"10" ... }

and that datatyping info (e.g. a schema) subsets this set.

perhaps this could be called tidy+

in terms of the other proposal:

xsd:decimal"10" =>

_:a1 rdf:type xsd:decimal .
_:a1 rdfdt:value "10" .

or something to that effect...

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 10:21:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT