- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:30 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F. > Patel-Schneider > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:34 PM > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Cc: joint-committee@daml.org > Subject: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot > > > Hi: > > Here is my Thanksgiving turkey for you all. :-) > > > Suppose one decided that nodes in an RDF graph were one of > 1/ URIs > 2/ blank nodes > 3/ data values > 4/ text (untidy) > and that interpretations mapped > 1/ URIs into resources [as before] > 2/ blank nodes into ... [as before] > 3/ data values into themselves! > 4/ text into arbitrary literal values! > > Then a datatype scheme for the model theory is quite simple, > > Let DT be a collection of datatypes. > For d in DT let DTC(d) be a set, the extension of d. > > The model theory for datatypes is also quite simple. > > For d in DT ICEXT(d) = DTC(d) > For d in DT ICEXT(rdfs:Literal) >= DTC(d) > > > An RDF/XML serialization of an RDF graph element of the form > < s , p , v > for v a data value > is of the form > <... s ...> > ... > <p xsi:type="du">x</p> > ... > </...> > where d is some datatype with URI du > for which v in DTC(d) and x is a lexical form for v in d. > > Thus in the serialization we need access to the lexical-to-value mapping, > but not in the model theory. If you're going to put the mapping in the parsing, why not just use 'parseType=' to make clear it's a parser directive? Maybe you could get then get the best of both worlds -- let the data-aware parser deal with the lexical side of things (by converting the lexical form to a canonical representaion of the value). The parser could also generate a triple specifying the range of the property in question as the classname specified in 'parseType='. Then things could just behave as per your earlier proposal but without the possible ambiguities in lexical to value mappings (as the node label is always understood to be a canonical representation of the value space of the datatype). > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research > Happy Thanksgiving, Geoff Chappell
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 10:19:10 UTC