Re: rdf:value backwards

> RDF properties are sorta like OOP properties,
> and one of the most popular names for a "just give
> me the thing as a string" property is 'Value'
> Probably a better choice would be toString

I don't know why I didn't notice this the first time it came around, but I'd
have to disagree. The spec gives the example:

                      /- n:units -> n:pounds
(anonymous resource) -
                      \- n:units -> "200"

or in N3:

[ rdf:value "200" ; n:units n:pounds .]

It seems to me that if you'd want to represent this as a string, you'd use
"200 pounds". I've also seen it suggested that use of rdf:value implies that
its children (i.e. all arcs off of it's subject) are qualifications of the
subject node. Under this interpretation, an anonymous node with the
following properties wouldn't make much sense:

  rdf:type :Band
  rdf:value "The Beatles"
  rdfs:seeAlso <>
  :wroteSong "Hey, Jude"

since the Beatles website, the song "Hey, Jude", etc. are not qualifications
of the term "The Beatles". I believe that this should be cleared up by the
spec, and added to the issues list.

Aaron Swartz <>| ...schoolyard subversion...
  <>   |  because school harms kids
AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237|

Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 20:40:31 UTC