W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:18:19 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B07F4E4@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: geoff@sover.net, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Patrick, maybe something like your proposed URV mechansim 
> could be used to
> preserve these meta-statements (parseType, lang, ...). I 
> think you'd want to
> keep it clear that any statements made inside the URV were 
> about the lexical
> form, and not the value (which I guess isn't really the URV 
> proposal?). 

Right. The goal of a URV is to encapsulate the pair of lexical
form and data type, which together denote a value in the value
space of the data type.

To map to the actual value, you'd have to parse/interpret the
lexical form.

> With
> that additional information, you could happily use datatyping 
> proposals like
> P (the original) without fears of ambiguity in lex->val mappings.

Precisely. Since the pair of lexical form/data type are tightly
bound in the URI representation, binding a property value to a
superordinate property with different rdfs:range constraints
does not result in the literal being interpreted as a lexical
form of the superordinate data type, only that the value in
the value space of the URV data type is also a member of 
the value spaces of all superordinate data types.

I am, of course, asserting that the rdfs:subPropertyOf relation
when applied to data types, only applies to value spaces, and
not to lexical spaces.


Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 11:18:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC