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

Re: email straw poll: literal semantics proposals

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:58:59 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF322BF169.C64BA677-ONC1256C4D.007691B9-C1256C4D.0078C575@agfa.be>

[sorry to be late, but I had no access in Bristol to my mailbox]

B 5 (for rdf:format xsd:... there are canonical lexical forms)
C 3 (should we then always say e.g. owl:cardinality xsd:integer"2"?)
D 2 (meaning is same as C, but less kiss)
F 0 i.e. I do not want to loose the the entailment
      :I :love _:x.
      :You :love _:x.
    given *nothing* but
      :I :love "RDF".
      :You :love "RDF".
    (ref. meaningful derivation requirement)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Brian McBride                                                                                       
                    <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.co       To:     RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>                                  
                    m>                        cc:                                                                       
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     email straw poll: literal semantics proposals                
                    2002-10-07 06:39 PM                                                                                 

I would like to take an email straw poll of the WG regarding the options
for semantics of literals we currently have on the table.  For each of the
attached options, please could you give a score to indicate your
preferences.  I would like to have a strong indication of the sentiment of
the WG by Tuesday evening.

  o Unnacceptable proposals should be given a score of 0.  Please indicate
what absolute requirement(s) are not satisfied

  o Other proposals should be ranked from 1 to 5, with 5 being most
preferred.  Give options with equal preference equal scores.

Please note that proposal B includes retracting the decision to have
datatype values in the graph, i.e. retracts the

   <foo:age rdf:datatype="xsd;integer">10</foo:age>


Proposal B:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
     <rdfs:format rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/>

The object of an age property denotes a string literal [*] from the lexical

space of xsd:integer.

Proposal C:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer>10</foo:age>
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Film">

The object of the age property denotes a member of the value space of
xsd:integer.  The object of the title property denotes a string literal[*].

Proposal D:

   <rdf:datatype rdf:property="&foo:age" rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal"/>
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Johnny">

Proposal D is proposal C with some syntactic sugar (the rdf:datatype
declaration) so that it is not necessary to put an rdf:datatype attribute
on every use of the age property.

Proposal F:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;decimal"/>

The object of an age property denotes an integer from the value space of

[*] A string literal is an old style RDF literal which consists of a
unicode string and language identifier.
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 18:00:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC