- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:58:56 +0200
- To: melnik@db.stanford.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Sergey Melnik [mailto:melnik@db.stanford.edu] > Sent: 06 November, 2001 00:33 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: datatypes and MT > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me"> > > > <shoeSize> > > > <integer decimalRep="10"/> > > > </shoeSize> > > > </rdf:Description> > > > > The problem with this representation is that if we add > > additional qualification to the literal value, e.g. > > > > <integer decimalRep="10" foo:bar="xyz"/> > > > > then an application that does not understand the specific > > semantics of any vocabulary other than RDF and RDFS (such > > as a generic tool) does not know which is the actual > > value of the property 'shoeSize'... "10" or "xyz" since > > insofar as the graph representation is concerned, they > > are equally opaque. > > > > IMO, regardless of the final mechanisms employed and the > > level of typing or qualification of literals, it should > > *always* be possible for a generic application to > > differentiate on the basis of the graph itself, which > > "child" of a property node constitutes the value node > > and which are simply qualifications of that value. > > > > The above proposal does not, as far as I can see, > > provide for that reliable distinction. > > As far as I can see it, the reliable distinction you are talking about > is not always possible. Think of the following case: > > <complex realDecimal="1.0" imaginaryDecimal="2.0"/> > > as in > > _x rdf:type complex > _x realDecimal "1.0" > _x imaginaryDecimal "2.0" > > Above, properties realDecimal and imaginaryDecimal can be > thought of as > "partial mappings" from the lexical space of decimals to the > value space > of complex numbers. Each of the properties restricts the > interpretation > of the complex value. However, the complex value can be pinned down > unambiguously only using *both* property values. In other words, the > interpretation of _x is functionally determined by the two property > values. Well, just because there might be a few cases that don't fit a generic modelling, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for as much consistency as possible. > (As a side remark: of course, I'd prefer a different type of modeling, > in which the complex number is composed of two real numbers > rather than > gets determined by two lexical tokens.) Right. Such as <complex>1.0/2.0</complex>, eh? Cheers, Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 04:59:17 UTC