- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:00:48 +0300
- To: <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Sergey Melnik [mailto:melnik@db.stanford.edu] > Sent: 08 August, 2002 18:22 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com; Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com; > jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case) > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > ... > > Secondly, I was pointing out that XML Schema has untidy > > semantics with regards to lexical forms of datatype > > values -- and provides both global and local mechanisms > > for associating a datatype with that lexical form for > > interpretation. > > > XML Schema is stuck with Unicode strings in the DOM model. > RDF abstract > model can use other kinds of constants, e.g., binary objects. > In fact, > the new proposal is more reminiscent to how datatyping is done in > programming languages like Java/C rather than XML Schema. For > example, > in these languages, built-in datatypes like numbers, strings > or unicode > characters have distinct syntactic representation, i.e., 5, > '5', "5", 5d > , and (float)5 denote five different things. Fine. Whatever. Put it on your wish list for RDF 2.0. We're out of time, and we have already agreed that the stake-in-the-ground is "it" unless it is demonstrated and agreed to be lacking. The only issue remaining is to decide between tidy and untidy literals. Let's decide and wrap up. > > ... > > > Some comments on Dan's NTriples examples: > > > > 1. The triple > > > > :jenny :age 10. > > > > suggests that numerical values are native to RDF (i.e. a > > new node type) which must be understood by all > > RDF parsers and applications. RDF has no native > > datatypes, and I've understood it to be WG > > consensus that RDF would be datatype and datatype > > framework neutral. > > > RDF defines an abstract syntax (graph) and several concrete syntaxes. > In the new proposal, the abstract syntax is datatype neutral. The > concrete syntaxes do need to worry about the encoding of typed values. I have yet to see any abstract syntax that is datatype framework neutral, other than the ones I have suggested myself. Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 07:47:58 UTC