W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: In the interest of consensus and progress on datatyping...

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:30:07 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBAB1@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 29 August, 2002 15:42
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: In the interest of consensus and progress on 
> datatyping...
> > Putting on my editor's hat, and taking off my proponent's hat,
> > as a means of trying to facilitate progress towards consensus
> > and closure of the datatyping issues
> ...
> > The first part attempts to capture the core aspects
> > of datatyping which it appears the WG has reached agreement on
> > and which, for better or worse, could be adopted as-is as the
> > solution recommended by the WG for RDF Datatyping
> I agree. I would be able to vote for part 1 (subject to 
> future corrections
> etc.)
> I would tend to say "better" if the alternative is a document that has
> substantially less consensus behind it.


> I agree with your point that we will need to decide tidy 
> versus untidy, but
> remain of the opinion that this will be less controversial without any
> global datatyping.

Well, I still don't see how you can separate the two, since
insofar as interpretation of inline literals is concerned, to 
decide on tidy versus untidy *is* to decide on global implicit 
datatyping, since a tidy MT precludes it entirely
and an untidy MT automatically supports it with no change to 
the existing semantics of rdfs:range.

There is another decision that can be made, namely whether or
not to say anything at all about tidy versus untidy -- i.e leave
the MT completely agnostic about it.

This means that given the entailment


   Jenny age "10" .
   Fred payday "10" .
   Movie title "10" .


   Jenny age _:x .
   Fred payday _:x .
   Movie title _:x .

one simply could not determine, based on the official RDF MT, whether
the entailment holds or not. If the MT does not assign any meaning
to the inline literal nodes, then one cannot determine equality, even
if the literals are string-equal.

Applications would be free to choose between tidy or untidy semantics 
for untyped literals as they need or like (just as they do now).


Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 09:30:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC