- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:22:48 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 04:09 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >>I think that a key benefit of Dan's approach is that the above statement >>still results in a graph arc: >> >> < I(subject), I(property), I("literal") > >> >>where other approaches seem to suggest that this should not be generated, >>but instead that some pair of graph arcs should be generated. > >This is exactly why I like the 'implicit datatyping' approach; it leaves >literal subjects absolutely alone. However, I can't follow how Dan's >proposal does this, unless it also somehow allows literals to be subjects. >Doesn't he suggest transcribing the literal value 10.0 as the N3 form [ >rdf:value "10.0"], which requires rewriting the above as > ><I(subject), I(property), thing> ><thing, I(rdf:value), literal> For clarification: the advantage that I perceived was that this approach involved not a rewrite, but an augmentation. Thus the original triple value remains, and is still true in any interpretation that also satisfies the additional type-related triples. >>I see Dan's approach as allowing the other arcs to be added to the graph >>if they're needed (and the appropriate information is available). > >Right, so does the Hayes/Patel-Schneider approach. Yes... I think I'm coming to see that. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 08:07:05 UTC