- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:54:00 -0800
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > (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> Patrick, seems that you caught a wrong fish ;) Above, you associate two real numbers with a complex number. This is the way it should be done in principle, as I explained in my posting. Alternatively, one could associate two literals with a complex number directly, without relying on real numbers (IMO an inferior, but still valid approach). This is what the above example of mine illustrates. Sergey
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 13:27:07 UTC