- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:16:56 +0100
- To: melnik@db.stanford.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...] Sergey > Pat > > Sergey > > >it presumably does > > >not make sense to use it as object for properties like "age", "size", > > >"price", "weight", etc. In fact, such use would suggest that e.g. the > > >weight of a thing is a lexical token; typically, we'd like it to > > >denote some abstract entity that corresponds to say 5 pounds. > > > > No, no. If I USE a literal as a value, I am not MENTIONING a lexical > > token; I am using the literal to indicate a literal value. So for > > example by writing > > > > phayes weightAtAge50inPounds "165" . > > > > I am saying that my weight was 165 pounds, not that it was a lexical item. > > To reiterate my point, with substantial mental effort we (actually, you > and Peter P.-S.) can make the above statement work, i.e. to have some > meaningful interpretation. My point is that *clarity* is what matters > first for the SW to take off. Recall the recent suggestion by Peter to > give each and every XML document some meaningful semantic > interpretation. This just doesn't work, because developers would > generate a lot of "meaning" which is in fact just jibberish. Same > argument applies to the above. In order to make applications work, > people who encode the data must cooperate. Sorry about getting into > rhetorics. > > In the above statement, the property weightAtAge50InPounds fulfills in > fact two purposes at once: > > 1) it tells us how to interpret the token "165" > 2) it establishes some relationship between the interpretation of this > token with phayes. > > My suggestion is to separate these two purposes. To be even more > human-friendly, you'd write: > > phayes weightAtAge50inPoundsInDecimalEncodedByISO8601 "165" > > But that is far from being machine-friendly. fine Sergey, but I think we have to face a testcase like aaa bbb "xyz". rdfs:range bbb ccc. It will concur somewhere presumably so what sense do we/machines make out of that? [...] very interesting -- Jos
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 17:17:06 UTC