- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:22:57 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
> S. (Sergey) > > > Quite local, in that literals are ... Example: > > > aaa eg:prop _:x . > _:x xsd:integer "10" . > Sorry if I missed an example of this, but how would the above be represented in RDF/XML? Like this? <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop> <rdf:Description> <xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer> </rdf:Description> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> ??? I.e. what are the implications of having to have a bNode between every property and its literal value? How about the RDF/XML representations for the other proposals? Just because a proposal is "compatible with" the present RDF/XML serialization doesn't mean that its representatation is palatable. Here's a stab at the examples provided in Pat's mental dump re-expressed in RDF/XML as best as I can figure. If anyone thinks there's a better way for a given case, please suggest it. --- U. (Patrick) (formerly X, the URV proposal) aaa eg:prop <xsd:integer:10> . <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop rdf:resource="xsd:integer:10"/> </rdf:Description> S. (Sergey) aaa eg:prop _:x . _:x xsd:integer "10" . <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop> <rdf:Description> <xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer> </rdf:Description> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> DC. (Dan) aaa eg:prop _:x . _:x rdf:label "10" . _:x rdf:type xsd:integer . <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop> <rdf:Description> <rdf:label>10</rdf:label> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&xsd;integer/> </rdf:Description> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> P. (Peter) Not local at all, in that literals are assigned a datatype indirectly, by declaring a datatype to be the range of the property used in the triple. The range information might be anywhere in the graph, and need not be 'close' to the triple including the literal. Example: aaa eg:prop "10" . eg:prop rdfs:range xsd:integer . <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop>10</eg:prop> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="⪚prop"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/> </rdf:Description> P++. (Pat) aaa eg:prop _:x:"10" . _:x rdf:type xsd:integer . <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop rdf:resource="#x"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="x"> <rdf:label>10</rdf:label> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/> </rdf:Description> ??? How does one define the literal node label in RDF/XML serialization for the P++ proposal? If one has to use a property of the bNode, then are the differences between P++ and DC all that great? Or are they just notational variants? E.g. is the representation of P++ also <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aaa"> <eg:prop> <rdf:Description> <rdf:label>10</rdf:label> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/> <rdf:Description> </eg:prop> </rdf:Description> I.e., identicial to DC... ??? X (Patrick) <rdfg:SNode rdf:ID="N1"> <rdfg:subject rdf:resource="#N2"/> <rdfg:predicate rdf:resource="#N3"/> <rdfg:object rdf:resource="#N4"/> </rdfg:SNode> <rdfg:UNode rdf:ID="N2" rdfg:label="#aaa"/> <rdfg:UNode rdf:ID="N3" rdfg:label="⪚prop"/> <rdfg:LNode rdf:ID="N4" rdfg:label="10"/> <rdfg:SNode rdf:ID="N5"> <rdfg:subject rdf:resource="#N1"/> <rdfg:predicate rdf:resource="#N6"/> <rdfg:object rdf:resource="#N7"/> </rdfg:SNode> <rdfg:UNode rdf:ID="N6" rdfg:label="&rdf;type"/> <rdfg:UNode rdf:ID="N7" rdfg:label="&xsd;integer"/> Note, however, that the X proposal suggests an underlying model for interpretation and processing, not necessarily for serialization and interchange, and certainly not for humans ;-) --- I think that expressability in RDF/XML should be taken into account in considering the proposals. Regards, Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 15:23:13 UTC