- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:19:59 +0300
- To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-04-19 11:32, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote: > At 04:17 PM 4/18/02 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>> Some of our customers definitely do not want to be located there. >>>> They WANT to be able to be sloppy about datatype values, mix talk of >>>> strings with talk of integers, etc., and still they want to invoke >>>> lexical form checking using datatypes. >>> >>> I understood the concerns/desires differently. I heard that they >>> wanted to be able to use the inline idiom and leave the interpretation >>> entirely to the application, or at most, indicate which datatypes >>> should apply to the interpretation of which literal values. >>> >>> But perhaps you're right, and I've misunderstood... >> >> Well, check this out with Graham. > > Well, speaking for CC/PP, as currently designed (and, by association, > UAProf as I understand it's currently implemented): > > The starting point is this: the applications uses literals in places where > the intent is to express a number, or some other value; e.g. something > akin to: > > HardwarePlatform ex:dpi "100" . > > The _implementations_ to date interpret this as meaning a display > resolution in dots-per-inch is 100 (the number). Yes, I know this is what > Patrick argues for -- BUT (and this is a big "BUT") it's the application > that makes that interpretation, not RDF as described by Pat's document [1]. I'm not arguing that the literal node all by itself denote the value. But that it is clear that the presence of both the literal value and an rdfd:datatype assertion communicates to the application that the literal is intended to be interpreted by the application as a lexical form of the specified datatype which represents a specific value of that datatype. The application-level interpretation is not left implicit for the application to guess, but rather, one application can unambiguously communicate which datatype should govern the interpretation of particular property values. > I would like it to be otherwise --i.e. RDF datatyping would provide the > interpretation of "10" as a number-- but I can also accept that it's not > absolutely necessary for CC/PP to work pretty much as designed, with > extra-RDF help from the CC/PP applications. I honestly don't see why RDF Datatyping cannot provide that consistent unambiguous interpretation/knowledge even though it doesn't always provide explicit denotation of the value in the graph. But hey, maybe I'm just that stupid. > But the current tidy literals proposal [1] can work with CC/PP by virtue of > pushing interpretation of the literals into the application (which knows > about the properties). The _application_ may choose to notice rdfd:range > properties and apply corresponding interpretations, but that is > _application_ knowledge being applied, not RDF semantics. (Yes, it would > be nice if RDF semantics covered this, but I've already mentioned that.) I think it should cover such interpretations (and does at the moment). Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 05:17:05 UTC