- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:58:06 +0300
- To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>
> 3) Untidiness requires changes in existing apps and APIs, whereas tidy > interpretation does not. Perhaps not as much as one might think. If each inline literal is prefixed with a unique systemID, it may very well be that little to no existing apps or APIs need change -- rather, syntactic comparisons that before returned true will now return false (since while "10" == "10", _:a"10" != _:b"10") and thus applications may not be licensed to make all the entailments that they earlier were making, not without clarifying the full meaning of the literal, presuming the knowledge is there to do so. This reflects the "clarification" made about the meaning of inline literals, and encourages those applications which wish to compare property values based on meaning rather than form of expression to consider the semantics asserted for the property. On the other hand, if those applications wish to continue treating inline literals as global constants, they must themselves take that extra step of stripping off the systemID prefix prior to comparison, with (hopefully) full knowledge that that is not licensed by the RDF MT. But they can do it easily enough, and encapsulate that "sin" in a single proxy comparison method to that provided by the API. Patrick
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 10:05:52 UTC