- From: <tarod@softhome.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:11:14 GMT
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sorry, I'm not following this thread but I guess you are talking about
giving meaning to literals. I mean use data types for literals, so, instead
of having...
John is 23
I would have
John is age1234
age1234 type integer
age1234 value 23
Is that right?
That suposes that we will have an instance of RDF with the triple of
sentences for each literal we had in the original one. When you have a
really big model this is not posible, I think that this is ok, if you need
it but using a new extension, name it DataTypedRDF DTRDF or something like
this but if you want to use the model without typing, why not???? It's a
model that doesn't know anything about semantics 010 is different that 10,
two literals 10 and 10 are diferent, you must compare them in your
application, maybe you will never need this comparation, so, why add them
to the RDF Core? RDF Core must be as easy as possible, RDF Schema should
be, too, an each extension over a basic model will be more complex, but you
will use it, only if you need it.
Regards,
Marc
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 04:44:46 UTC