- From: Nicolas Chauvat <nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr>
- Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0200
- To: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Anthony, Le Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 10:30:27AM +0700, Anthony Moretti a écrit : > Yes, this makes sense to me too. I've brought it up a few times, it > actually seems like people have been more receptive to it lately. I've been > calling them "composite value types", to which I can add your examples: > > Coordinates > Polygons > Fractions > Addresses > ComplexNumbers > ChessPositions > > They don't need an IRI, the value's components and its type are enough to > uniquely identify the value. A comparison operation can be canonically > defined for each type. > > DateTime is another example, in my opinion DateTime literals are syntactic > sugar for an extremely common composite value type. I agree with this and with the name "composite value type". I am trying to convey the same idea of values that do not need an IRI and are more than numbers and strings. Datetime is indeed another perfect example. > Once you have composite value types I think a class of collections—"value > collections"—falls out of that, so collections where members are values and > not IRIs. "One step at a time" ! ;) -- Nicolas Chauvat logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2022 12:26:39 UTC