Re: model theory for RDF/S

I am concerned that this model theory locks RDF into a particular
way of interpreting literals, namely that the interpretation of a literal
can be completely determined from its label, using a fixed mapping to
literal values.  (One way to do this would be to require that literals
include typing information, perhaps looking something like INT(10) or
STRING(10).)

While this may seem to be the only way to go, consider the case with XML
Schema, where the interpretation of a ``literal'' depends on typing
information that is specified elsewhere.  In XML Schema, you don't know
what an element means unless you have acces to the schema.  I think that
this translates to the following in RDF.  The interpretation of a literal
in RDF+Schema depends on some typing information for the literal, which
need not be specified with the literal.  I think that if RDF is to
incorporate (aspects of) XML Schema it should be prepared to allow this
sort of separate typing.

Comments?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 18:41:53 UTC