- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:29:55 +0100
- To: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 09/07/2020 06:29, Patrick J Hayes wrote: > BTW, for straighforward datatypes like the xml schema, which all relate a value > to a string, it occurs to me that you could do this by using the datatype name > as an RDF property. So instead of, say, > > ex:Pat ex:age “75”^^xsd:integer . > > you might have > > ex:Pat ex:age _:x . > _:x xsd:integer “75” . > > where the “75” is now type xsd:string. This makes a kind of intuitive sense > since datatypes are required to define a mapping from strings to values, and we > have used the datatype name in exactly that way. (It would make even more sense > if RDF allowed literals to be subjects, so we could write it the other way round.) > And since it is all in one triple, the issue, about how we know when we have > enough proprties, vanishes. > I think I recall Dan Connolly proposing this back in the dim and distant day. (I think it was also related to TimBL's "interpretation properties" ideas [1].) Too late, I came to rather like this approach: could we have avoided introducing datatypes, and just use defined RDF vocabulary instead? [1] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html #g
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2020 11:30:15 UTC