- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:57:19 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > The node itself provides the locus to which the datatyping >> information applies (in the proposed MT extension, at any rate. > >OK, it's slowly beginning to dawn on me that "labels" are not >serving as the identity of the nodes (for crying out loud, guys, >we're working with "labeled graphs" where the "label" identifies >the node... can't we stick with traditional terminology so folks >don't have to learn yet another language... ;-) Don't start on that one. These things aren't even graphs, if you want to get technical; they are, apparently, partially labelled directed pseudographs. (Don't ask, OK?) >So, saying that "fi" is the label of some node doesn't mean that >it can't also have some e.g. "genid:1234" identifier that serves >as its identity in a triple, right? Right, the genids are used in the triples lexicalization to identify nodes. But they aren't in the graph itself. For example, '_:1' in a triple might indicate a blank node. But a blank node really is *blank*. >What still has me confused is talking about literals as subjects. >OK, fine, it's really some bNode with a system-specific identifier >(genid: URI?) acting as the subject, but I don't see how that is >any different than the former "anonymous resource node" treatment. It has fewer nodes, it makes more sense (to me) and its easy to interpret. > >I.e., in both cases you have a node as the object, and that node has properties for rdf:type and rdf:value. No! If the literal node can be a subject, then you don't need the rdf:value arc at all. Its only there to provide a blank node to link the rdf:type to, because the current rules won't let us hang that edge directly onto the literal node. And then we need the rdf:value link to attach this blank node back to the literal node; but we needn't have put the bnode there in the first place, if the literal node could have been a subject. (IMHO:-) >It seems to me that >by calling the literal a "label" rather than an rdf:value attached >to the node, you're just changing the cosmetics of the model but >not the significance of it. In either case, you still have a node >and that node has the literal attached to it. With the rdf:value arc, we have two nodes (where one would do, IMHO) >You're just attaching >it in a different place. Are you really saying that > > _:x:"10" rdf:type xsd:integer. > >is in any way functionally different than > > _:x rdf:value "10"; rdf:type xsd:integer . > Well, its a different graph. Maybe this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but there is a difference. >??? > >(sorry if my N-triples notation is funky, I'm still learning...) > >Why does moving the literal from a property of the anonymous node >to some "label" of the anonymous node change things? It just >means that I no longer can use generic means to get the literal, >but must either now know how to obtain the label of the node, >and possibly parse the label to extract the literal. > >(sorry, but I'm looking at all this from the perspective of >a software engineer, and I'm trying to figure out how such a >change in the graph representation buys me anything) Well, what counts as a 'change'? Seems to me that aaa eg:prop "10" . looks awfully like two nodes and an arc. All I want to do is leave them alone. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 21:57:32 UTC