W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: DATATYPES: mental dump.

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:08:46 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510103db81764a9f7ce@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>Datatype names can be names of classes or names of properties, or both.
>Nervous twitch of antenae:  Don't we have an issue about whether 
>classes and properties are disjoint?  Yes, in
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/2001-08-02.html#T21-00-44
>we have restated rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property
>   "are Property and Class disjoint?"
>If we decide they are disjoint, does that cause P++ any problems?

Not a fatal problem, though it would kind of force it to choose one 
or the other, so its claimed 'universality' would not be so 
impressive any more.

>>None of the first three proposals require all this elaboration 
>>(although they are not incompatible with it), since they all assume 
>>that literal meanings are completely specified by the literal label 
>>(to be a single literal value in X, or to be a string in S and DC), 
>>and the datatype class heirarchy, if it exists, is invisible to 
>Is that true, which I suppose means "what exactly do you mean by that?"
>For example, in proposal S, if I define the domain of say 
>xsd:integer to be foo:integer and rdfs can conclude that any bNode 
>with an xsd:integer property hanging of it is an integer.

The bNode denotes an integer, sure, but the literal itself on the 
literal node at the other end of the xsd:integer arc is still a 
string. Literals themselves are always treated like 'labels', ie 
strings which denote themselves, in the S/DC systems.

>Similarly, in the S proposal, would not xsd:byte be a subProperty of 
>xsd:short which is a subProperty of ...


>>They can all be straightforwardly handled in RDF/XML.
>>The S and CD proposals require that users conform to a given 
>>'idiom', and are often incompatible with current common usage in 
>>which literals are used to refer to things other than strings;
>I know what you mean here, but I object to the term incompatible. 
>Current RDF does not do anything about datatypes.

I said current USAGE, and I was going on what others have said about 
people writing things like

Pat shoeSize "10" .

I know we don't currently have an official position on this, but I 
thought it was a common observation that people do these wicked 
things whether we say it is OK or not.

>In one interpretation all literals denote strings, and if I have a 
>property with value "10", then that's just fine.  An application can 
>'know' that it should interpret that as an integer.  With for 
>example, the X and S and DC proposals they can continue to do so. 
>The datatype information is simply not represented in the RDF model; 
>its encoded in the definition of the property.

? That is what the P(++) proposals do; seems to me that is exactly 
what the others fail to do. (??)

>This doesn't seem to me to any different from, say the property 
>weightInKg which takes a P++ representation of an integer implying 
>that units are kilograms, not pounds.

Well, see my response to Sergey on that example. That would only work 
in that form if there was a datatype mapping from numerals to 
kilogram weights, which is unlikely.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 19:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC