- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:02:57 +0100 (BST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- cc: "dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > So, you are proposing a new term rdf:ltype? > > I still strongly feel that the introduction of a new term is avoidable > and that the concerns about using rdf:type previously voiced were based > on a misunderstanding about the treatment of empty data content taken > as a null lexical form. > > There is the question of where the balance lies between making things > easiest for implementors versus easiest for users -- particularly when > we consider that the number of parsers being written are many orders > of magnitude less than other applications and still even less than > schemas and RDF instances. Even if it means a bit more work to use rdf:type > rather than some other term such as rdf:ltype when updating the parsers, > that's work done once -- and if it results in greater clarity and usabilty > to users in general, then I would think it worth that little bit of extra > effort. > > Dave, given the clarifications above about null literals, would you actually > find it overly burdensome to support the use of rdf:type rather than some > other term? Given that position, I can't support the Dting proposal. It seems bizarre to single out zero-length strings for special treatment. I _am_ aware that there's a cost involved with introducing rdf:lexicalType (or, urg, an abbreviated form like rdf:ltype) but I think it's a better approach than using rdf:type to do this. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Work #90: As many pseudo-intellectual sycophants as necessary to make one inarticulate scotsman think he's a genius in command of The Profound.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 09:05:58 UTC