- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:52:01 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-04 17:17, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > We could allow arbitrary typed values as node labels. e.g. in the B10 > example the nodes are labelled with the number 10.5 and not with the string > "10.5" nor the string "10,5". Unfortunately, Jeremy, such an approach cannot work in practice. Otherwise all RDF parsers must support all arbitrary datatypes and the RDF graph must provide a *lexical* representation (albeit canonical) for all values of all arbitrary datatypes?... Honestly Jeremy, the situation is not as bad as you think (though I'm sure we're not the only ones who are getting a little glazed from the debate over these issues ;-) Please see my comments on B10 and see if you feel afterwards the same as you do now. > None of the global idioms work in this view; because the global idioms are > global, i.e. worldwide. If the global idiom interprets "10,500" as ten and a > half thousand then it does not interpret it as ten and a half. This is only a problem if you deviate away from TDL pairings and try to accomodate the S idioms and semantics at the same time. It's the fact that the S-A approach is trying to have datatypes with mutltiple disjunct lexical spaces and mappings rather than the single lexical space and mapping that is the root of the problem. If we stick to the original definition of a datatype, adopted from XML Schema, then there is no ambiguity -- no problem. > How about replacing the global idiom with a document scope type declaration > idiom, possibly with an include mechanism. Please, please, please folks. We need none of this extra cumbersome machinery, either in the syntax or the graph. It is only from the effort to fuse TDL and S that the apparent (and not actual) need for such mechanisms arises. I think we're making this all much more difficult than it has to be. It has already been expressed that the MT for TDL is or can be made sufficient -- and it does not suffer from any of the above mentioned problems, nor from many other problems that have come up in discussions. I think if we would just focus on whatever tweaks are needed for the TDL MT then we could have a good solution and move on to other issues. > ===== > > Summary of idea: > Use true typed values as node labels in abstract syntax. Unfortunately, no feasible. RDF has no native types and thus cannot have "true" values in the graph. We will never escape lexical forms in the graph if we are to allow/support arbitrary datatypes. > Use purely syntactic means to generate these labels (built on top of > XSD). A bit too cumbersome, I think, especially since it can be avoided. -- All of these supposed problems are simply arising from the conflicts inherent in the different S idioms or between the S idioms and the TDL idioms (or their interpretations). I just don't see it as fruitful to keep trying to mate animals from two different species. We're bound to keep getting bizarre and frightening results. 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 Monday, 4 February 2002 10:50:55 UTC