Re: Datatypes

Le 09/07/2020 à 13:29, Graham Klyne a écrit :
> 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” .

Actually, I'd rather propose the following encoding:

ex:Pat ex:ageOn9thJuly2020 [
   xsd:integer [
     xsd:string (
       [xsd:unsignedByte "55"^^owl:real] # ASCII code for character "7"
       [xsd:unsignedByte "53"^^owl:real] # ASCII code for character "5"
     )
   ]
] .

This makes it *very clear* what is denoted by the blank node. It is also 
elegantly avoiding the bnode identifier.


--AZ

>>
>> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2020 11:56:23 UTC