W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: property formerly known as rdf:value

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:24:13 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B894544D.EBE6%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-16 2:43, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> Do we have a clear consensus on what name we are going to give to the
> property that links a value to its literal? We've been using
> rdf:value, but people want to protect that for legacy purposes.
> Bear in mind that it has the bnode denoting the value at the blunt
> end, and the literal itself at the sharp end, so if it says 'value'
> then it ought to be 'valueOf'
> Possibilities include

I have several times suggested rdf:lform, which is derived
from the official XML Schema terminology for 'lexical form'
which is what in fact the object of such a property is.

Per Brian's suggestion of adding new vocabulary into the
RDFS rather than RDF space, it should then be rdfs:lform.

> rdf:dlit
> rdf:dlex  (to suggest the LEXical space of a Datatype)

Not very mnemonic, but I could live with either. Though
I think rdfs:lform is better.

> rdf:valueOf

Though I understand what it means, after a bit of work,
this "feels odd" to me for some reason. I think because
it is "reversed" compared to most property name readings
which say what the property value is rather than how
it relates to the subject.

I could live with it if I had to, but I still think
it's a little odd.

> rdf:nameIs

Don't like this. It's not a name. It's a lexical form.
Too much semantic baggage with 'name'. Nope.


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 11:22:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC