Re: Re(buttal): Why I cannot live with S

On 2002-01-25 21:38, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Sergey:
>> As a developer, I don't have an option. With TDL-RDF, all of my own
>> applications in mediation, model management, backend storage etc. would
>> technically become non-RDF applications, or applications "formally known
>> as complying with the deprecated RDF 1.0" ;) I don't see any practical
>> benefit in migrating all existing code to TDL, and I might not be a
>> single implementor out there.
> 
> I would like to better understand this.
> 
> The intent in the TDL model theory was that an interpretation with no
> supported types was the same as the current model theory. I suspect this
> boils down to the tidy versus untidy literal nodes issue.

Sergey,

If TDL supports tidy literals (which it does, though the MT will need
adjustment) does this address your concerns about compatability with
your present applications?

A TDL with tidy literals allows (I belive) for Dan's "redhead"
example where the datatyping for a given property is implicit in
the RDF and kept consistent as a characteristic of the application
environment (i.e. everybody agrees that 'hairColor' is a value
from some enumeration "red", "blue", "green", etc. and the
reliability of the axiom inferring redheadedness relies on
conformance to that implicit datatyping).

Eh?

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 Monday, 28 January 2002 04:22:06 UTC