- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:39:55 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: >> > I think we need to nail down the handling of simpler cases before >> getting >> >>> too involved in arcane syntax options. By simpler cases, I mean how >>> are we >>> to interpret simple RDF like this: >>> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me"> >>> <ex:shoeSize>10</ex:shoeSize> >>> </rdf:Description> >> >> >> dirt simple: >> >> <...#me> <...#shoeSize> "10". > > > No no, wait a minute. You are having your cake and eating it. That > triple doesn't conform to your proposed idiom; Indeed, that triple doesn't conform to my proposed idiom, but that's because the RDF from which it's transcribed doesn't conform. I don't want folks to write that sort of RDF. I'm not trying to have my cake and eat it too. I want folks to write <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me"> <ex:shoeSize dt:decimal="10"> </rdf:Description> or <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me"> <ex:shoeSizeNumeral>10</ex:shoeSizeNumeral> </rdf:Description> > it uses the literal label > in object position on an arc not labelled with a datatype mapping. If > you allow this kind of triple and also your bNode idioms, you need to > somehow connect them. Sorta. > Can we infer one from the other? Both ways? no. > If so, > the simple idiom (as you have here) is equivalent to the extended bnode > form, so why do we need the latter? If not, how do we manage to > establish any kind of inferential connection between them? We don't. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 14:40:08 UTC