- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:12:26 +0100
- To: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Hi, Following up on my earlier comment: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com> wrote: > Hi, > > [pruning response] > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> Hi Leigh, >> >> Sorry for slow follow-up as well. I've included some comments where >> needed. >> >> Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote on 07/11/2012 08:22:35 AM: > [...] >>> I understand the general aim, as clients do have more chance of >>> working with data if they can understand it. One might argue that this >>> applies just as well to schema terms as well as datatypes. For schema >>> you've encouraged some best practices and convergence on standard >>> terms. The same approach could be applied to datatypes. >>> >>> There's a matter of degree here too. Truly custom datatypes are >>> unlikely to be interoperable: there still isn't a well defined recipe >>> for defining them. However the XML schema datatypes are all >>> well-defined, if not always widely supported. As I pointed out, I >>> think more of them are in common use than the subset recommended in >>> the profile. >>> >>> In this kind of standardisation effort I think its worth surveying >>> usage to determine current practice and deciding the best route >>> forward. >>> >> >> Seems like a good suggestion, do you have any good references to start >> with? > > Off the top of my head some good sources to look at would be: > > * data type support in triple stores/SPARQL implementations. i.e. what > types are being natively supported? > * survey of type usage in the LOD cloud. Ought to be possible to query > some of the LOD caches and extra some metrics on usage of types. I was reminded recently that the new GeoSPARQL extensions defined by the Open Geospatial Consortium defines at two new datatypes. One for a WKT (Well Known Text) literal and one for a GML literal. While it remains to be seen how well adopted GeoSPARQL becomes, it seems that a reasonable use case for LDP would be to store data that conforms to GeoSPARQL and re-uses its vocabulary terms. More information: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Freelance Technologist Open Data, Linked Data Geek t: @ldodds w: ldodds.com e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 16:12:55 UTC