- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:04:49 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- CC: <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
On 2002-02-01 2:44, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > A dt-interpretation I of E - with respect to some externally > defined set D of datatypes, where each datatype d in D has an > associated lexical-to-value mapping LV(d) - is an > rdfs-interpretation of E where for every doublet > > S rdf:value "uuu" > S rdf:dtype ddd > > in E, if I(ddd) is in D, then I(S)=LV(I(ddd))(uuu) > > Notice that this really is a condition on the doublet because it > mentions both ddd and uuu. It is consistent with I("uuu") being the > string uuu, so we could make graphs tidy on literals ... > > ... > > If: > foo rdf:Range DDD > xxx foo yyy > then: > yyy rdf:dtype DDD Brilliant insights, Pat. Outstanding! This fits the concept of TDL perfectly. Looks like a solution. One additional possibility, if some folks still are not happy with using rdf:value to associate the literal (which was expressed recently, I recall) is to use a property rdf:lform denoting the lexical form. This mirrors precisely the semantics of the TDL pairing, where you have the lexical form and datatype paired together. E.g. foo ex:someProp _:1 . _:1 rdf:lform "10" . _:1 rdf:dtype xsd:integer . This way, the semantics of rdf:value can be left to denote values, not lexical forms that need datatype context to be interpreted as values. It also means that the datatyping solution is a clean extension of RDF 1.0 and won't force any re-interpretation of existing uses of either rdf:value or rdf:type insofar as datatyping is concerned. What do you think? Thanks so much for your valuable input to this problem. Cheers, 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, 1 February 2002 03:04:07 UTC