- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:23:28 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/9/20 7:29 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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 I like this idea too. On a related note, Sean Palmer suggests having a single *identification* space, using URIs, instead of having literals be a separate identification space. The number 75, for example, would be denoted by a standard URI, but parsers would understand 75 as syntactic sugar for that URI. https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/68 David Booth
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2020 12:23:43 UTC