- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:20:27 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 16:57, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > 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). Correct. With the understanding that it is S-P but with the whole-datatype URI denotation used by TDL, not just the *.map component. > This presents the following less controversial issues: > > 4: What to do with simple triples <subj> <prop> "string" ? My comments below. > 5: Do we allow S-A idiom? No ;-) > > May I also suggest that: > > 6: We replace rdfs:range with rdf?:dRange for datatyping. Only if this is absolutely required in order to get the MT to work. OK? > 7: Should we rename rdf:value as rdf?:dValue? Again, only if this is absolutely required by the MT. We should take an anally conservative view regarding adding any extra machinery, I think. (OK, there, I admitted I'm anal about it ;-) > 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 OK, but I think this should be part of the RDF parser functionality. It's not just an implementational detail. I'm presuming that those XSLT transforms are part of the parser implementation. > Then the choices are: > > 8: Is the syntactic transform applied by default or not? I say yes. > 9: Is there any standard syntactic way of indicating to (not) apply the > transform? parseType? per each case processing instruction? for entire instance > 10: If the syntactic transform is not applied then is the untransformed > triple just treated as in M&S with no datatyping? I say yes. Though this is why I think the transform should apply by default. Folks should have to explicitly choose to do things sans-datatyping as that, I think, is the non-standard atypical scenario. > 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. Insofar as we abandon that idiom as a datatyping idiom, true, though I wouldn't say either is "wrong" per say. > A dumb triple is > simply a dumb triple with no datatyping, and no number of other triples can > change it. Right. If you want datatyping, use a datatyping idiom. > 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. Yes: 1-4, 8, 10 No: 5 Maybe: 6,7 (if absolutely needed by MT) Open: 9 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 10:19:26 UTC