Re: incomplete datatyping (was: Re: datatypes and MT)

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