- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:57:26 -0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I read Patrick's proposal as: 1: Replace rdf:type with rdf:dType for datatyping. 2: Use S-P (or TDL global) allowing 0, 1 or more rdf:dType arcs. 3: Use Pat's doublet approach to fix MT (bNode denotes value not pair). This presents the following less controversial issues: 4: What to do with simple triples <subj> <prop> "string" ? 5: Do we allow S-A idiom? May I also suggest that: 6: We replace rdfs:range with rdf?:dRange for datatyping. 7: Should we rename rdf:value as rdf?:dValue? ==== Expanding 4: into yes/no questions is made easier by the existence of the syntactic transform. Let us suppose that we already have some xslt that transforms simple triples into a triple pair using rdf:value. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0369.html Then the choices are: 8: Is the syntactic transform applied by default or not? 9: Is there any standard syntactic way of indicating to (not) apply the transform? 10: If the syntactic transform is not applied then is the untransformed triple just treated as in M&S with no datatyping? 10 is a critical question because most of the heat has been about S-B versus the TDL global idiom (e.g. the tidiness question). If we say yes to 10, we say that M&S is right and both S-B and TDL are wrong. A dumb triple is simply a dumb triple with no datatyping, and no number of other triples can change it. An example of such a dumb triple would be: For: <Jenny> <age> "10". then the datatyping note says nothing about the type of Jenny's age. If there is a range (or dRange) constraint then this is ill-formed. I hope we can all agree on 1,2, 3 and 10(yes). I hope we can all live with any combinations of yeses and noes on 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Jeremy Patrick: > Take TDL (sans present MT) with its present local idiom, > is also the S-P idiom (apart from the designation of the > datatype URI) > > Replace the global idiom with Jeremy's proposed bNode > global idiom, which is a derivative of the local idiom > with rdf:type omitted > > Make literals tidy (untidyness is born by the bNodes) > > Extend the RDF vocabulary to include the property rdf:dtype > which is an rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type, and which is > to be used by both local and global idioms (I think this is > a more conservative choice than adopting a completely separate > vocabulary per Pat's recommendation) > > State for the benefit of the XML Schema community that > datatype URIs in this solution denote the whole datatype > as defined by the datatype owner with no extension or > modification. The datatype simply serves as the context of > interpretation for a typed literal. > > Fix/extend/refine the TDL MT to take these changes into > account and make it all work ;-) >
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 09:57:43 UTC