- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:46:28 +0000
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 14/11/2011 12:21, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Nov 14, 2011 11:01 AM, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > >> In theory, I suppose one could do this, but I don't like it. > > neither do I ;) >> > >> +1 (I think - or maybe don't use literals at all - model theoretic > treatments of FoL that I've seen don't use literals, just language > constructs and names for everything.) > > That is a promising approach, in a way already done in all PROV-ASN > examples mentioning time "t+1", but what about attributes? Just use names for attribute-values? (Attribute names don't denote; they're just keys or tags used to identify the association of values, so the discussion doesn't apply to them.) #g -- >> But I'm wary of doing this. I Turtle style is adopted, the mapping to > XML could be more complicated > > Yes (for instance 2.5 to<value xsi:type="xsd:double">2.5</value> ), but > every mapping does not need to support every kind of value, as in the json > typing example. >
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 22:53:44 UTC