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

Re: literals and typing

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:05:28 -0500
Message-ID: <010101c16959$e35e52e0$0400a8c0@GSC866>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: literals and typing



> >From my perspective, the only of those that is inline with (the intent
of)
> >current practice is P. Though it seems that X is perhaps a viable case
under
> >P - i.e. there would be nothing stopping an individual from declaring
under
> >P that the range of property <p> is something like xmldatatype and then
> >saying  <subject> <p> "<xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer>". The value would be
> >opaque to the rdf inference process but could still be processed and be
> >meaningful externally. But it doesn't seem to make sense (to me) to have
the
> >inference process looking within the literal labels.
>
> Well, take a look at the blizzard of discussion on the RDF Core WG
archive.
>
> To elaborate on the above, BTW, I just posted a longer comparison:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0295.html
>

Wow - I'm surprised at the conclusion... doesn't seem to me that S
(described in your email linked to above) is a good choice (though I'm
admittedly more concerned with how useful RDF is for soving problems than in
how well a group's charter is met). What of the RDF that's been written to
date that doesn't conform to this? what of rdf that will written in the
future when one doesn't know the datatype of a property?

> Pat

Geoff
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 15:09:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:16:02 UTC