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

Re: RDF datatyping goals (action from teleconference)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:11:30 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:29 AM 1/15/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>1. Regarding note 2, we should change "primitive" to "anySimpleType" to
>coincide with the XML Schema terminology. The statement that we don't/won't
>address derived types is not quite correct, as we should support all
>instances of anySimpleType, even those that are derived, and not only
>the built in types but also all custom defined instances of anySimpleType.

The terminology "Built-in" and "primitive" also comes from the schema 
document (e.g. part 2, section 3).

I'd like to seek wider consensus on the specific point you raise, but I've 
added some words to the document.  (My preference is to start simple and 
build up from there;  i.e. have an account for the primitive types first, 
and then see if it extends cleanly to the derived types.)

>2. Regarding note 6, "include" should probably be "infer", as in
>"It should be possible to infer typing information in an RDF graph by
>referencing an associated RDF schema."

Hmmm... "infer" carries some (logic-related) baggage that I didn't want to 
invoke at this stage.

How about "indirectly incorporate typing information..."

>3. Regarding note 7, the statement "One of the dimensions by which one can
>categorize datatyping proposals is by whether individual values are
>explicitly or implicitly typed" applies really to idioms, not the datatyping
>scheme/model itself. Thus "proposal" should probably be changed to "idiom"?

Hmmm... I'm reluctant for two reasons:
(a) this text is pretty much the desderate the DAML+OIL joint committee 
gave us, and I don't want to mess with it too much,
(b) I think it's OK to the extent that any "proposal" could be said to 
support (i.e. allow use of) one or more "idioms".

>4. Regarding note 9, it may be misleading that different idiom examples have
>disjunct ontologies (with namespaces specific to each idiom). This sidesteps
>the issue of co-existence in a knowledge base. The role of an idiom is to
>express knowledge according to a given ontology -- and is not specific to
>any particular ontology.
>Please use just 'ex:' in the examples, and if that means idioms A and B
>interact in an undesireable fashion, then that is useful information for
>evaluating the different combination of proposed idioms.

The exact point of using different names is to avoid the assertion that it 
is the same name that is used in every idiom.  (I considered using Sergey's 
.lex, .val and .map conventions, but did not because that implied too much 
about how the idioms would be interpreted.)

I'll note that, where more than one idiom is supported by any given 
proposal, the ex*: names used may be the same or may be different for any 
pair of supported idioms.

>Furthermore, since N3 is not the official serialization for RDF, I propose
>that we use RDF/XML for all examples in formal publications. It's fine to
>use N3 informally, but it is IMO impolite to expect all parties interested
>in reviewing formal publications of this WG to learn N3.

Yes, OK.  As far as I'm concerned, this is an informal discussion 
document.  (Hmmm, I should probably say that somewhere.)


       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 08:10:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:08 UTC