- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:37:22 +0200
- To: ext Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-11 12:04, "ext Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> A few comments ... > > ... > >> The machinery I find hard to justify is: > > ... > >> - Always carrying the lexical values in the graph, and having the > lexical >> values in the model theory. > > Hear, hear. Lexical forms don't belong in a graph; values do. Getting > from a serialisation to a graph is a parser issue (for some definition > of "parser" that may include schema knowledge). If you mean that members of the value space should have explicit representation in the graph, then I disagree. To achieve representation of actual values, you must have native support for all data types for all statements, which is unreasonable and IMO unfeasible. The RDF graph defines portable knowledge. You may map that knowledge to other representations specific to a given system, either in the API or even some underlying implementation, but the graph represents portable *system-independent* knowledge, not system specific knowledge and therefore we have no recourse but to have lexical forms in the graph, along with a consistent and unambiguous interpretation of the values they represent. There can be no native data types in RDF, only a consistent means for declaring the data type of a lexical form. 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 Friday, 11 January 2002 05:36:46 UTC