- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 13:57:10 +0100
- To: Ray Fergerson <fergerson@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Cc: rdf interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Mor Peleg <peleg@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
At 04:12 PM 9/1/00 -0700, Ray Fergerson wrote: >A question about the semantics of the alternative collection type has >come up here. We wanted to construct a model in which a property >could have a range of, for example, the days of the week. One >possibility is to declare a Day_Of_The_Week class with instances >Monday, etc. An example of this sort is given in the RDF spec. In >our model though we really just need strings and not instances. We >don't really want properties to be associated with these things. We >initially thought that the Alt was an alternative (hummm) that would >allow us to just have strings. A closer reading of the spec seems to >indicate though that the elements of an alternative collection are >meant to be equivalent is some way yet different in some other, >unspecified, way. Thus you might imagine "Monday", "First workday", >"Lundi" as the elements of an Alt but not "Monday" and "Tuesday". > >Is this interpretation of Alt correct? Are there other ways to >specify that the value of a property should be a single value from an >enumerated set (preferably of strings)? I tripped over a similar problem recently. Your posting helped me clarify my thoughts. I think that describing a union data type and listing several alternative representations of what is essentially the same value are two very different functions that have somehow been conflated with the idea of 'alternative'. I think your (latter) interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation of rdf:Alt. I think your former idea needs to be treated as a *schema* issue rather than a *representation* issue. And I think that 'rdf:Alt' is not part of the solution. I suspect that as and when the XML schema data type work is folded into RDF, that will provide a way to do what you want. Per http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html, I think we're operating at a level that still depends upon some degree of "Schema option 2". #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 4 September 2000 09:04:51 UTC