W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Datatype question

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:05:56 -0400
Message-ID: <046f01c21acf$dbabb150$825ec6d1@goat1>
To: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

I'm sure this has come up in rdf core datatype discussions but I can't find
in the archives why it was rejected. Can someone familiar with those
discussions clear this up for me?

Why can't a datatype class be interpreted as a union of the datatype values
and their string representations? and as a mapping from value to
representation when used as a property? for example:

abbrev_integer the datatype contains the sets {10, 3} and {"10", "3"} and
the mapping ("10"->10, "3"->3)
abbrev_integer the class contains the members {10, "10", 3, "3"}
abbrev_integer the property has extension (10, "10"), (3, "3")

{range age abbrev_integer}
{age x "10"}

is consistent with (and implies)

{age x ?y}
{abbrev_integer ?y "10"}

and is enough to indicate that ?y=10

If a datatype is understood to contain a set of values, a set of
representations, and a mapping between the two sets, what is wrong with just
defining that when viewed as a class, it looks like the union of the two
sets, when viewed as a property, it looks like the mapping (i.e. different
aspects of the datatype are seen depending upon how it is used)?

It seems so simple and fully captures the common usage of specifying a value
by either it's string representation or in a more qualified form (using the
same property).

Thanks for any responses.

Geoff Chappell
Received on Sunday, 23 June 2002 11:36:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT