Re: RDFON: a new RDF serialization

Henry Story wrote:
>
> _:123 xsd:integer "123" .
>
> Which is to say that there is a thing, which has relation xsd:integer 
> to the string "123".
> my guess is that the relation xsd:integer, is inverse functional and 
> functional.

But I disagree with this. Does this thing also have a relation 
xsd:integer to the string "one hundred and twenty three"? The string 
"123" is an identifier---no more no less. The *only* relationship the 
string "123" has to _:123 is 
eg:oneOutOfTheManyWaysHumansRepresentThisValueUsingUnicodeCharacters.

>
> Now I am not sure if in this case the blank node refers to itself. I 
> suppose some (Bertrand Russle for example) would say it refers to the 
> set of sets of size 123, just as 2 refers to the set of pairs, and 3 
> refers to the set of triples. But I am not sure how one should think 
> of it in rdf.

Funny---30 minutes ago having breakfast I was thinking of exactly the 
same point, because it illustrates again how RDF uses literals for 
various unrelated cases. Integers are completely different things than 
URIs, somewhat different than dates, and parallel to base 64 binary. RDF 
literals would also be appropriate for Java enum types, such as 
MyColor.RED or PowerSetting.FULL. In short, literals are used in RDF for 
everything we can think of that can easily be represented by a string. 
The string is simply an identifier. It refers to the resource, and 
that's the only relationship it has to the resource.

So I would rewrite your example:

_:123 rdf:type xsd:integer .

>
>
> _:123 morse:intcode "_...." .

I'm find fine with that (assuming that _:123 revers to the value 8 ;) ). 
We could also have:

_:123 rdf:canonicalIntegerLexicalForm "123" . (Exaggerating the name for 
emphasis)

But the point is that "123" is not the resource. It's just one 
representation of it.

>
>
> [] morse:intcode "_...." ;
>    xsd:integer "123" .

I think you mean the same thing that I say above, but it's confusing, 
because in XML Schema xsd:integer is a type. If you mean 
rdf:canonicalIntegerLexicalForm or something, then fine. I want to 
reserve xsd:integer to be the object of the rdf:type predicate.

Garret

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 15:50:47 UTC