- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:35:23 +0200
- To: melnik@db.stanford.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > (BTW, I agree that this simple idea has its merits; but I think that > > if we are going to insist that literals *must* be explicitly > > datatyped, then we should impose this as an explicit syntactic > > constraint in the very syntax of the language.) This follows from the nagging feeling I've been having that "typed" literals are not really "literals" in the strictest sense. > In principle, I agree. However, if we stick a single type to each > literal we won't be able to deal with the cases where > multiple literals > are required to determine the data value unambiguously > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > _x realDecimal "1.0" > _x imaginaryDecimal "2.0" > > as indicated in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0103.html I didn't catch this the first time I looked at this example, but it seems to me that what we really have here is: _x rdf:type ComplexNumber _x realComponent [ rdf:value "1.0"; rdf:type xsd:decimal ] _x imaginaryComponent [ rdf:value "2.0"; rdf:type xsd:decimal ] or using URV's _x rdf:type ComplexNumber _x realComponent <xsd:decimal:1.0> _x imaginaryComponent <xsd:decimal:2.0> Thus we have a true complex value, which itself has two properties each of which have a data typed literal value. Thus, in fact, this example doesn't contradict my earlier assertion for which this was offered as an exception. Cheers, Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 05:35:51 UTC