- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:16:20 +0000
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:00 AM 11/12/01 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote: > > I think we'll see a lot of RDF usage like this: > > > > _:Robby child:age "12" . > > _:Robby child:weight "14" . > > _:Jenny child:age "12" . > > _:Jenny child:weight "12" . > > > > i.e. things like number radix and units will implicit in the vocabulary > > (properties) used. > >I believe the above representation could also be utilized in the S >proposal (I think Pat and I are still dashing out this topic on another >thread). In S, the literals "12" and "14" above would represent literal >values, not masses in durations, and child:age would connect directly t2 >and s2 in the diagram. However, an application could have a built-in >understanding that > >_:Robby child:age "12" > >somehow implies > >_:Robby IS:age X >X IS:inMonth Y >Y IS:inDecimal "12" > >Given this implicit knowledge, the only valid interpretation for the >IS:age of Robby would be determined uniquely as d1, i.e. "one year". Of >course, in this case the range of child:age would be rdfs:Literal and >not IS:Durations. In other words, if CC/PP uses S, either instances >could be kept "as is", or schema, but not both. Ah, OK ... I'm warming to this, but I need to think some more. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 11:33:38 UTC