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 20:05:06 -0500
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:18 PM
> To: Geoff Chappell
> Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> Subject: Re: literals and typing
> >>
> >>  To elaborate on the above, BTW, I just posted a longer comparison:
> >>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0295.html
> >>
> >


> 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.

If I understand the delicacy issue with P/P++ it's that a class and one of
its subclasses might have different lexical domains (e.g. hexint, int) and
so it will be unclear/ambiguous in which form the literal value is actually
encoded as a string. But doesn't the same issue exist with S? if we have:
(#whoknows hexint "70") and (hexint subPropertyOf int) we can infer
(#whoknows int "70"). Can't these problems exist in any of the schemes
except X (and only not there because types aren't exposed to inference -
i.e. there are no datatypes visible to RDF).

> Pat

Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 21:41:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:37 UTC