- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:11:01 +0200
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> and I think of the class of the object as identifying its > value space, and is independent of its lexical space. > > My mental model. I can change it its wrong; but I don't think its uncommon. > > Brian The problem with this view, though, is that XML Schema defines a particular lexical space for this value space, and if applications are getting an RDF literal that has a type corresponding to e.g. xsd:integer, it should be allowed IMO to presume that the lexical representation of that RDF literal conforms to the lexical space defined for xsd:integer by XML Schema. To say that one should be able to define things such as [ rdf:value "0x28"; rdf:type xsd:integer ] and expect that applications which "support" the XML Schema primitive and extended data types would be able to eat that is IMO very unreasonable. The whole point of XML, RDF, and most W3C standards is to facilitate interchange, and that means that things are as consistent, regular, and reliable as possible. Such standards define a "contract" of sorts between content producer and content consumer, and deviation from those standards should be viewed as a breech of contract. No? I don't see it as useful at all to say that RDF type qualfications of literals only specify the value space and not the lexical space. IMO, the lexical space is just as important, and WRT interchange, could be seen as the *most* important. In fact, I'm going even further, to the point of proposing a mechanism of typed data literal encoding which provides the actual regular expressions by which an application is able to validate the lexical form of a given literal per its defined data type (a more formal specification of the URV concepts outlined in X-Values). So, I don't see value space and lexical space as being separable at all with regards to any encoding of knowledge such as XML or RDF, and a data type classification that provides no specification of its lexical realization is IMO of dubious utility for qualifying literals, as the very purpose of that data type qualification is to provide cues to an application about how to parse and use that value. 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 05:11:13 UTC