Re: datatyping summary

On 2002-02-05 3:42, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:

> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> 
>> This message addresses the main criticisms of TDL.
>> I will follow up with more detail concerning query, Brian's B3 & B4.
>> 
>> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> I do like your suggestion, although I see it from a slightly different
> perspective than DanC. In fact, your proposal is very much in the spirit
> of the "flower power" posting I sent (which means we are on the same
> track!). I think DanC got upset because it sounded like the above
> expansion should be the default for RDF parsers. If, instead, we could
> use a special flag in the syntax to indicate the desired parsing
> behavior, we won't run into complications ("HUGE change" to RDF 1.0
> stressed by DanC). With this addition, I'm a fat green light ;)

I would need to see some non-trivial examples of what this would
look like in practice, to get a feel for the level of burden
that would be placed on users, both those creating knowledge
as well as software engineers writing software to interact with
that knowledge. I fear there are still a few wildcards hiding
in the parseType approach that need to be found and addressed.

I'm also not convinced that the syntactic flags are necessary,
or that we must absolutely change all parsers to impose the
modified bNode global idiom.

Before going the route of extra machinery, either in the XML
syntax or the graph, let's try first to find a solution that
works without it, OK? (see my next posting on this ;-)
 
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 Tuesday, 5 February 2002 05:05:15 UTC