- From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 19:53:05 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Thanks, all very helpful. I just have one disagreement, which is not necessarily important to your argument (sorry!), but I don't want to let through without comment. > On 24 Jul 2020, at 19:23, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote: > > <snip> > It truly is the spirit of RDF datatypes to have to parse the lexical form to understand what a literal means. > <snip> > --AZ I really don't agree with this, and this may be where some trouble arises. The "spirit of RDF" to me says that the whole point of literals is that is where meaning bottoms out - if you want meaning, it goes in the RDF. Viewing literals as having structured meaning is what gets people into the trouble of equating names with people, etc.. And indeed that a literal could be "10 inches" instead of "10". I see that what is being proposed around UCUM as very interesting, and moving away from that spirit, but personally I think it is wrong to say that there is no change being proposed. At an extreme, this would mean having RDF graphs with a single triple that has a huge and complex N3 document in its single literal, with a full RDF semantics. Where does it stop? -- Hugh 023 8061 5652
Received on Friday, 24 July 2020 18:53:26 UTC