Re: RDF speficiations (was RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot)

From: tarod@softhome.net
Subject: Re: RDF speficiations (was RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:11:14 GMT

> 
> 
>    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?

Well this is one way of implementing data types for literals.  I,
personally prefer one that does not have this ``triple bloat''.

>    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.

My worry is that if this approach is followed, i.e., don't worry at all
about typed literals in Core RDF, several promising approaches for handling
datatypes will not be compatible with Core RDF.  This is the concern that I
brought up a while ago.

However, I also think that datatypes should be an essential part of RDF and
deserve a full treatment within Core RDF.


>    Regards,
>            Marc

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 08:39:11 UTC