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

Re: why not take just the 2 ???

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:10:45 +0200
To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8840EA5.D052%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-04 0:59, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:

> ps 1 URI (in S) seems to maybe working e.g.
>    :Jenny :ageL [ xsd:int "30" ] .
>  and
>    :Jenny :ageG "30" .
>    :ageG rdfs:range [ is rdfs:range of xsd:int ] .
>  but indeed :ageL and :ageG are different properties

I think we've traded one problem for two now...

I.e., I don't see how this can work with just one
URI, since the range constraints for the two idioms
have different semantics and refer specifically to the
lexical or value spaces, not to the entire datatype
per TDL. I.e.

   Jenny ex:ageL _:1 .
   _:1 rdf:value "30" .
   _:1 rdf:type xsd:int .
   ex:ageL rdfs:range xsd:int . (= *.val)

   Jenny ex:ageG "30"
   ex:ageG rdfs:range xsd:int . (= *.lex)

How does using two different properties change the fact
that the two range constraints have different semantics?
You've not lost the distinction between which space
is being referenced by which idiom.

The other problem with this is that, as has been stressed
in a recent posting of mine, this will require
*two* variants of all ontologies, which I consider
to be completely unacceptable -- and expect that the
folks maintaining DC, PRISM, MARC, ONIX, DAML+OIL,
etc. will agree.

So I'm just not seeing this approach as moving us towards
a solution... (and believe me, I'd love to see us move
towards a commonly accepted solution! ;-)



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 03:09:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:09 UTC