- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:49:18 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 05:38 PM 8/2/02 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Are the two documents descriptions of the same graph?
>
><rdf:RDF>
> <rdf:Description>
> <eg:prop xsi:type="xsd:decimal">2.0</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>
>
><rdf:RDF>
> <rdf:Description>
> <eg:prop xsi:type="xsd:decimal">2.00</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>I think I heard yes.
If the literal is intended to be a number, then I think yes.
But a possible issue then would be that RDF engines without knowledge of
XML schema datatypes would get different answers from engines that do have
such knowledge. I don't know if that's a problem.
>Furthermore is this the same:
>
><rdf:RDF>
> <rdf:Description>
> <eg:prop xsi:type="xsd:int">2</eg:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
></rdf:RDF>
>
>I suspect it is too?
Hmmm... I'd need to consult XML schema details for that.
And what about:
<rdf:RDF>
<rdf:Description>
<eg:prop xsi:type="xsd:float">2.0</eg:prop>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
In this case I think the answer is no. (For reasons mentioned in the
message Dan cited recently --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JanMar/0130.html)
The question raised, I think, is does constructing the correct abstract
graph depend on knowing about the datatypes? If so, then I think
extensibility has just been comprehensively denied. (Which is not too
surprising, if one considers the way programming languages typically
distinguish syntactically between literal types -- the range of literal
types is often prescribed by the language, though complex values may
sometimes be constructed from them.)
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 13:37:40 UTC