W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2004

Re: DRS guide -- usage scenario ?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:22:15 -0500
Message-Id: <5D14A7B4-477F-11D8-927E-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>

On Jan 15, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:

>> [Bijan Parsia]
>> I think that interesting structured literals can do a fair bit.
>
> I guess I don't know what "literal" means.  What does it mean?  (Just
> point me to the right section of the right technical working group
> recommendation working paper formal normative note.)

Sure.

	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp

	http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.1
	http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1

Interesting use of XMLLiterals, especially, if you want to use XML 
schema complex datatypes requires solving:

"""Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an 
XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to use 
user-defined XML Schema datatypes in OWL."""

But I believe Peter has a solution that he in fact proposed to the XML 
Schema working group. There's no fundamental technical issue about 
complex types, only the standardization of names. If RDF/XMLLiterals 
(or RDF/N3 literals) proved of special interest, we could coin uris for 
them and ask the community of tool builders to take those into account.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 12:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:15 UTC