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

Re: RDF typed node implementation experience

From: Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:33:59 +0300
Message-ID: <3DA662C7.8080008@profium.com>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


> I have a couple of questions for you:
> 1) What does your software do with literals for which there is no 
> datatype information, i.e. given:
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="A">
>     <foo:prop1>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="B">
>     <foo:prop2>10</foo:age>
>   </rdf:Description>
> In the absence of any range information about the two properties does 
> your implementation regard the 'values' of the two properties as being 
> equal?  It can be difficult to tell.  In some implementations you can 
> and in some you cannot.  And in RDFCore we can argue for a long time 
> whether you can tell or not :(

If the RDF schema is missing the range property for a given
property, Profium SIR assumes it to be of type &xsd;String.
One can then run a query with SIR and look for equality or
not-equality or pattern-matched parts of those values.
This approach effectively makes those two property
values equal should the range be missing from the schema.

> 2) How big a burden to you would it be, if to be conformant, you had to 
> add a datatype attribute to the instance data, e.g. you had to write:
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
>     <foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">10</foo:age>
>   <rdf:Description>

This would require us to rewrite our software completely.
In addition, all RDF instance data should be rewritten.

Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
Profium, Lars Sonckin kaari 12, 02600 Espoo, Finland
Tel. +358 (0)9 855 98 000 Fax. +358 (0)9 855 98 002
Mob. +358 (0)40 508 4767  Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 01:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:00 UTC