- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:55:42 +0100
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19. January 2010 23:35:11 Danny Ayers wrote:
>> Why not -
>>
>> :M62 a :Globular_Cluster;
>> :distancefromearth [u:light_years "22500"];
>> :diameter [u:light_years "100"] .
>>
>> etc?
>
> Yeah, that's a good question, and my answer is, nobody's doing it, so it
> can't be such a good idea, now that's the possibility has been around for
> ages.
The question is that of course most things can be expressed in RDF,
but it is often simply a bad idea to do them using a mixture of named
graphs and blank nodes. It's really just too complicated for most
developers/users who aren't already SemWeb zealots. And it's these
people that any revision of RDF should aim at, not people who already
are using RDF.
You can also attempt to express most english sentences using
first-order logic. However, it is unclear what that gains you, and
expressing many common things becomes incredibly painful very quickly.
I think pretty strongly an extensible data-typing mechanism should be
built into RDF++. Again, the XML community has long been complaining
about the data-typing facilities of XML Schema not being extensible,
see this post [1].
Furthermore, try to explain to any developer the difference between
xml:string, rdf plain literals, and rdf:PlainLiteral. Anyone can
clearly tell that, indeed, three different ways of talking about
strings should probably be fixed.
cheers,
harry
[1] http://www.jenitennison.com/datatypes/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kjetil
> --
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> kjetil@kjernsmo.net
> http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 01:56:14 UTC