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

Re: Datatype question

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:33:17 +0300
To: ext Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B93E219D.17534%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-25 13:22, "ext Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net> wrote:

> ... My only point was that queries with
> multiple conditions are more efficient if those conditions have common
> bindings - e.g.  I'd rather be waiting for my system to process "{?a ?b ?c}
> and {?c ?d ?e}"  than "{?a ?b ?c} and {?d ?e ?f} and
> somefunc(?c)=somefunc(?d)".

Ideally, we should expect a datatype-capable RDF API to handle these
things for us, such that queries are made based on known values
rather than their literal denotation in the RDF graph. Such an API
would also equate the different local vs. global idioms accordingly,
such that

   Jenny age "010.00" .
   age rdfs:range xsd:decimal .


   Bob age [ xsd:decimal "10" ] .

would be comparable as

   Jenny age ?value .
   Bob age ?value .

Note that no only do the lexical forms differ, but also
the idioms differ, yet (taking the untidy view) both
Jenny and Bob have the same age.

The ability to treat the local and global idioms
as semantically equivalent is a major benefit of
the untidy approach, since the object of a
given property always denotes the value.

Note also that this means rdfs:range works the same for
datatyping as for any RDF typing.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 06:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:41 UTC