- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:51:48 +0200
- To: ext Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-16 9:50, "ext Ronald Daniel" <rdaniel@interwoven.com> wrote: > Dan said: >> On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 02:14, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>> If you use the S-B like idiom, where the literal is the >>> direct object of the property, >> >> Yes, that's what I mean by S-B. >> >>> then you are simply not >>> using any datatyping. > > Perhaps a more accurate statement is that you would ignore > the datatyping that he is doing. His code would quite > happily accomplish a number of useful tasks, like detecting > when a garbage value was provided. He could also reuse a lot > of existing code, like stuff that parses the wide variety of > date formats so we can do sensible date comparisons. Right. I probably worded it too strongly. What I meant is that he would not be doing "RDF datatyping" such that the datatyping knowledge is expressed in RDF. >> I have a choice to use S-B whether this WG >> endorses it or not. If this WG endorses >> it, I'm likely to get more interoperability; >> I'd like that. > > I'm in massive agreement with Dan on this. > This WILL be used. It already has been. More is on the way. > You probably don't want to cut yourself off from very > large sources of production-quality info which happens > to have a very simple structure typed in this very simple > way. After all, 'quantity has a quality all its own'. Sure. We can neither force anyone to do things a given way, nor choose to reject valuable knowledge that can be put to use productively. Of course not. That was never my suggestion. Apologies if I gave that impression. I was simply trying to be very explicit about what an arbitrary application might be able to do with arbitrary RDF encoded knowledge which is supposed to have datatyping -- and the S-B idiom usage falls somewhat out of that scope. Most of my recent comments/concerns have had to do with genericity and to what degree RDF graphs "stand on their own" without any external knowledge -- which I think is an imperative for achieving a SW where arbitrary agents interoperate based solely on the knowledge expressed in the RDF graph and do not rely on any presumptions external to the graph, unless taken from the standards/specifications defining the SW architecture itself. S-B expressed data which relies on application specific interpretation does not reflect such genericity, and therefore will be a hinderance to portability and interoperability as the SW scales to a global scope. Cheers, 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 Saturday, 16 February 2002 03:50:24 UTC