- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:32:03 +0200
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> <rdf:Description> > <eg:size rdf:type="http://example/integer" eg:hexint="10"/> > <rdf:Description> I think that this explicit identification of base separate from the lexical form itself fails to recognize that this is an issue that has been addressed by programming languages and other formal languages for decades. The lexical form of a data type is just that, the lexical form, and should be interpretable as-is, without any further information other than the data type itself. I.e. <eg:size rdf:type="http://example/integer" rdf:value="0x10"/> Which defines an integer that happens to employ a lexical form expressed in hexidecimal. No need for an explicit 'eg:hexint' designation. Further, using a property such as 'eg:hexint' does not facilitate generic processing of knowledge based solely on RDF and RDFS defined semantics, preventing an application from locating the actual "rdf:value" of a property without understanding the specific ontology used for classifying lexical values. Lexical characteristics should be embodied in the lexical representation, and should not need explicit qualification in the graph, and the literal value of a property should IMO always be generically obvious in the graph, even if none of the qualifying or typing semantics is understood. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 01:32:26 UTC