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

Re: Proposal to drop S from consideration

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:50:20 +0000 (GMT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0111290944390.22773-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> [...]
> > But that doesn't mean that other's won't.
> >
> > And while I don't take issue with your interpretation of
> >
> >   <dc:title>abc</dc:title>
> >
> > such that 'abc' denotes a string, but you seem to imply
> > (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that given
> >
> >   <dc:date>2001-11-27</dc:date>
> >
> > that '2001-11-27' also denotes a string, which I think
> > is not the common view (certainly not my view).
> As far as I know, it's the view taken in every implementation.
> I'm not aware of any implementation that allows
> any date-related operations on the value of such a property;
> they all allow string operations on it.
> Do you have some RDF software that treats the value of
> that property as a date?

Yes. http://ioctl.org/rdf/java/RDF.tar.gz is a fairly old snapshot.

> Applications on top of RDF parsers that know about dc:date
> take the string and do date stuff with it. But not
> the RDF parser itself.

You seem to have jumped tracks somewhere in this argument. RDF Software
<> RDF Parser.

> > I think
> > that most folks expect the data content of such a property
> > element to correspond to a value in a value space, and that
> > the data content literal correlates to a lexical form, not a
> > string.
> I see that as a misunderstanding of RDF 1.0's expressive
> capabilities.

...which is the way I've read the RDF spec since 1998 or so :-)

> > > You see S as a change? I don't. It's the way I've read
> > > the RDF spec since 1997 or so.

> I see S as a straightforward layer atop RDF 1.0.

For what it's worth, I'm coming round to the "would really rather not
live with S"* point of view.

I'd rather see P++/U' than P/U (where U' doesn't actually do gnarly
things with URIs, but still has the low-level typed data of U).


* As a antive Englishman, consider this to be an the strongest
expression in this regard I'm prepared to make.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Don't annihilate, assimilate: MacDonalds, not missiles.
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 04:50:35 UTC

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