- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:12:39 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 16:56 12/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] >What about round-tripping? Does the application then just choose >any suitable datatype and lexical representation as it likes, >rather than the original pair it recieved? What if the RDF/XML >is being returned to the system it originated from, and a >datatype that is not recognized or supported by the originating >system is used? This is a good point Patrick and seems like a pretty general question, independent of our choice of abstract syntax. If an application is serializing a graph for transmission to another application, how does it choose what datatype representation to use. There are two assumptions in Patrick's statement here that I'm not sure are valid: o that all information in a model will have been de-serialized from some serialization with specific datatypes used o that an application receiving information represented as rdf/xml will understand the same set of datatypes as the one that provided the information in the first place. We could help to make the second of these true with some strong words of encouragement to use particular datatypes, e.g. xml/schema. [[When serializing an RDF graph, the use of xml/schema datatypes is recommended for representing datatype values where the datatype capabilities of the receiving system are not known.]] How would folks feel about such a strong endorsement of schema datatypes? [...] >I believe that having values as labels in the abstact graph will >introduce portability and interoperability problems between >applications as well as misunderstandings and conflict between >application developers insofar as different applications/platforms >are able to natively interpret and represent different sets of >datatyped literals. Would you like an action to analyze this issue and document those problems in more concrete terms. Brian
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 11:14:53 UTC