- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 13:27:07 -0800
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > If we are going to use bnodes, I would rather write this as: > > > > > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > > > _x realPart _:y1 > > > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 > > > _:y1 xsd:number "1.0" > > > _:y2 xsd:number "2.0" > > > > I'd prefer this representation too, not doubt. > > But aren't you confusing data type with property here? No, I'm not. It has been pointed out many times on this list that use of rdf:value often leads to big trouble when some resources suddenly turn out to denote the same thing. (Brian gave an example of such clash some time ago.) Therefore, I avoid rdf:value completely until we dashed out the basics of datatyping. Sergey > Shouldn't it rather be: > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > _x realPart _:y1 > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 > _:y1 rdf:value "1.0" > _:y1 rdf:type xsd:number > _:y2 rdf:value "2.0" > _:y2 rdf:type xsd:number > > or better yet > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > _x realPart _:y1 > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 > _:y1 rdf:value "1.0" > _:y1 rdf:type xsd:float > _:y2 rdf:value "2.0" > _:y2 rdf:type xsd:float > > ??? > > Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 16:00:12 UTC