- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:58:29 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> Oh, I agree its not helpful to conflate them. But let me probe this >>> other usage a little. Consider various kinds of numerals, eg decimal, >>> hexadecimal, octal, binary. Obviously these all have the same value >>> space, so it doesn't make sense to use something like 'octal number' >>> to refer to a value space. So I'm left wondering what this usage is >>> supposed to mean. For example, what is a decimal *integer* ? >> >> >> >> Yes, I agree. That's why I don't expect to see arcs labelled rdf:type >> with xsd:integer at the sharp end. I expect rdf:type to identify the >> class of the node at its blunt end, > > > ?? Sorry, maybe I am not following your sharp and blunt ends. (I assume > the blunt end is the subject and the sharp end is the object in an RDF > triple, right?) > > If we were to write a class name at the blunt end we would be > attributing a property to the *class*, right? Do you mean something like > > xsd:integer rdf:type rdf:DataType . Please forgive my being unclear. Its a small point and probably not worth the effort, but let me try again: There seem to be three fundamentally different approaches in play. They all have in common that a literal value, e.g. an integer, is denoted by a node in the graph. They differ on whether an arc from that node, labelled with rdf:type, takes a value which denotes a value space or a datatype (Pat's use of the term datatype i.e. as defined in XSD a tuple defining lexical space, value space and facets). All I was originally trying to say is that programmers, and some of the time I am one, are used to the type of something denoting the value space alone. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 07:03:27 UTC