- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:09:27 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat, I pretty much agree with all you say, in particular that (1) and (3) are not the same. I think any difference is one of emphasis and usage style. I see (2) and (3) as being more similar - they both provide a way to use a literal to indicate a node denotes some value according to a datatyping scheme - in this case an integer represented by a decimal numeral. So, bearing in mind your comments at the last telecon, my question for you would be: is there a need for (3) that is not satisfied by (2)? #g -- At 04:53 PM 3/16/02 -0800, Pat Hayes wrote: >>I can't remember if we agreed this was an issue: >> >>The latest datatyping proposal [1] provides three different ways to apply >>datatyping: >> >>(1) Sections 1, 5: >> >> ex:Jenny ex:age "10" . >> ex:age rdfs:drange datatype:decimal . >> >>(2) Section 3: >> >> ex:Jenny ex:age _:x . >> _:x datatype:decimal "10" . >> >>(3) Section 5: >> >> ex:Jenny ex:age _:x . >> _:x rdfs:dlex "10" . >> ex:age rdfs:drange datatype:decimal . >> >>I think that options (1) and (2) cover the use cases that have been put >>forward. I don't recall a use-case that needs (3), so this may be an >>issue to the extent that the proposal goes to some additional effort to >>support more options than may be really needed. > >3 is the case that corresponds to the version of idiom (1) where a literal >can denote its value. That was the original P-style idiom which is used in >DAML, for example. We have ruled out the P idiom, but case (3) above is >its substitute. I think we need this in order to be able to do range >datatyping properly. It isnt really fair to say that (1) and (3) are >alternative *ways* to do datatyping: they are the same way, but used for >different purposes. (1) imposes a check on lexical forms, (3) assigns a >value based on the form. > >> >>(This presumes a slight weakening of one of the stated desiderata >>concerning uniform application of "local" and "global" typing >>idioms. Effectively, option (1) is a "global" (or "remote") mechanism, >>which can also be applied locally. Option (2) is a strictly local >>mechanism. (3) might be viewed as a "global" (or "remote") variant of (2).) >> >><aside> >> >>(4) Another option, not explicitly part of the datatyping spec, but noted >>here for completeness since this is implicated by the non-datatyping >>elements of RDF schema: >> >> ex:Jenny ex:age _:x . >> _:x rdf:type datatype:decimal . >> : >> (other properties for _:x, etc.) > >Right, but in this proposal, that would NOT invoke any particular datatype >checks. It just uses normal RDF schema reasoning about a class which >happens to be the one used by a datatype. > >> >>which would be rdfs-entailed by: >> >> ex:age rdfs:range datatype:decimal . >> ex:Jenny ex:age _:x . >> : >> (other properties for _:x, etc.) >> >></aside> >> >>.... >> >>A very much lesser possible issue: is the name "rdfs:drange" appropriate >>for its use to indicate allowable lexical forms? > >Well, I suggested that we change it to rdfs:dcrange in order partly to >make it even less similar to rdfs:range. The 'range' part does make some >sense, since it applies to the object of the property rather than the >subject, but I agree it is potentially confusing. > >Pat >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 11:07:53 UTC