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

Re: literals and typing

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:18:15 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510102cb811f5b797f8@[]>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
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
>>  >current practice is P. Though it seems that X is perhaps a viable case
>>  >P - i.e. there would be nothing stopping an individual from declaring
>>  >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
>>  >inference process looking within the literal labels.
>  >
>>  Well, take a look at the blizzard of discussion on the RDF Core WG
>>  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?

Well, yes; but all the proposals have snags, unfortunately. I wish 
there was a clear winner, but I think we will have to compromise 
somewhere. I personally would love to see something like X, in its 
stark simplicity, but I doubt if the RDF core WG will be willing to 
adopt a new, unproven, URI scheme as part of the standard. And the P 
schemes are rather 'delicate' in that they require datayping schemes 
to be carefully crafted to be upward compatible, and will completely 
fail if they are not. Although S does require much existing RDF to be 
rewritten, the rewrite looks quite neat in RDF/XML. Your last point 
is a good one, however.

But the jury is still out, and I think there will be a period of 
asking the community for its views, so be ready to chime in with 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 16:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:22 UTC