W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: RDF Issue rdfms-literalsubjects

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:43:17 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510145eb8a04130da8a@[]>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>>  Some people want tidy literal nodes. Some people want to allow
>>  'multiple' uses of literals.
>I wonder who in their right mind would use the same literal in the *same
>graph* to mean two different incompatible things.

I tend to agree, but I think it's more that some users want to be 
allowed to be sloppy and not care what their literals denote, but 
still have them checked for wellformedness relative to a datatype.

>  > Well no, because all you would have is the ability to talk about
>>  those character strings, not about what they might refer to. That's
>>  the cost of having tidy-literal graphs: it kind of forces you to lock
>>  down a single fixed global meaning for each literal.
>Ok, I see that now.  With the (current?) assumptions of the WG, apparently
>you have effectively eliminated the use of literals as subjects :(

Well, not "eliminated"; more "castrated".

>   I
>hesitate to mention, you could have gone ziggeing instead of zagging.   The
>WG could have used the literal subject as denoting values instead of
>lexical forms.

But what if the same node is a subject in one triple and an object in 
another? Hmmm, I guess that could still work, but I bet a lot of folk 
would find it very confusing. Eg someone might write

"345" ex:numberOfDigits "3" .

expecting the subject to be a string and the object to be a number, 
and wonder why it broke.

>This would have allowed moving the datatyping to the other
>side of the node, eliminating all the do-ce-doe with the extra Bnode, and
>allowing a more natural datatyping of the actual literal.

It would make the use of datatype properties to be more natural, yes, 
since then they would be the 'right way round' , ie from the literal 
to the value. We considered this, but it seemed like a small win for 
a potentially big cost, so we punted.

>But I doubt anyone will want to take this seriously after all the vested
>effort the other way around.

Well, you never know, the next WG might see it with fresh eyes and 
naive enthusiasm. But indeed it will take a *lot* to convince us to 
re-open a closed decision. We have a gun to our heads to finish this 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 14:43:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:59 UTC