- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:36:03 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Short response: I think we're moving toward using rdf:... rather than rdfs:..., and I'm happy with that. Longer... At 02:43 PM 11/9/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>Oh dear, I haven't being paying attention properly. Apologies. Something >>was niggling me about this, but I now think I see what it was: >> >>The datatyping extension is both syntactic and semantic. As a syntactic >>extension, it naturally belongs with the core language > >It needs to use rdfs:Datatype to signal a recognized dtype, that's >essentially syntactic. Yup. >>. But as a semantic extension, it fits more comfortably (IMO) with the >>schema material. Hmmm... I don't know what to suggest as a solution. > >Wait.... .solution? What exactly is the problem here? The "problem" I perceive, partly in response to Dave's comment, is that datatyping is core language syntax, but that the corresponding semantics of datatype-entailment don't really sit there. I don't think there's any fundamental technical problem, but a challenge of presentation that the relevant material is presented cleanly (e.g. avoiding dependencies like, for example, the RDF core specification on RDF schema). >> (DanC's approach, which we turned down, starts to look more attractive.) >> >>That's not helpful... thinks... the only thing I can think of that seems >>reasonably coherent is to bring the datatype URI into the core (rdf:), >>even if it is "adding a new term that has a meaning". It would not be >>the first such term in the core language; e.g. we already rdf:type, >>which has some defined semantics in an RDF-interpretation. > >I don't follow you here. Did you mean to say in an RDFS-interpretation? >Because that wouldnt really be accurate. No, I meant RDF-interpretation. I was responding to Dave's comment: [[ Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick them in RDFS namespace. ]] and suggesting that adding additional semantic rules in the RDF namespace would not be overturning some established policy. >>Is there any reason why a datatyped-interpretation has also to be an >>RDFS-interpretation? > >No deep reason. Its tricky to say much without mentioning rdfs:Dataype and >rdfs:Literal , is all. Yes... the challenge of presentation? >I think we discussed having rdf:Datatype and rejected it for some W3C >procedural reason (??). I don't know now. I think we're moving toward having rdf:Datatype rather than rdfs:..., and I'm happy with that. (For now, at least. Having read through the new stuff on datatyping, and thinking of Aaron's comments about complexity, I do find DanC's approach to datatyping more appealing (sans the lexical form constraint), by virtue of avoiding a whole slew of new mechanism. But, this isn't the time to question group consensus and I'm not about to rock the boat here. But I think it's something we might wish to contemplate if there's community concern about datatyping in the last call period.) #g -- >>At 05:53 PM 11/8/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: >> >>> >>>Dan Connolly said: >>>> >>>> I see >>>> rdfs:XMLLiteral >>>> >>>> in >>>> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20Model%20Theory_Oct_draft.html >>>> >>>> That should be rdf:XMLLiteral, right Dave? >>> >>>No, we agreed rdfs:XMLLiteral >>> >>>I noted this danger earlier this week. >>> >>>> eek... it's there in the syntax editor's draft >>>> too: >>>> >>>> If literal-language is the empty string then the value is the >>>> concatenation of """ (1 double quote), the value of the literal-value >>>> accessor and ""^^<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral>" (1 >>>> double quote). >>>> >>>> -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ >>> >>>It is in the soon to published WD too. >>> >>>> Let's please be careful... there is no >>>> dependency on RDFS from RDF. >>> >>>Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some >>>description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for >>>building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick >>>them in RDFS namespace. >>> >>> >>>> I thought we could get away with a combined >>>> model theory spec, at least for a while. >>>> But I think that time is ending. >>>> >>>> And I'm starting to wonder about the primer... >>>> ah; the primer is cited non-normatively >>>> from that syntax draft; as long as we >>>> do that, it can have both RDF and RDFS. >>> >>> >>> >>>Dave >> >>------------------- >>Graham Klyne >><GK@NineByNine.org> > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes >s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 06:47:38 UTC