RE: RDFCore Update

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> Sent: 18 October, 2001 21:33
> To: Brian McBride; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RDFCore Update
> 
> 
> From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> 
> > One major area of focus for the WG at the moment is 
> datatyping, e.g. using
> XML
> > schema datatypes in RDF.  Now would be a good time to let 
> us have your
> thoughts
> > and ideas on this.
> 
> I think values should be anonymous nodes in RDF with property arcs
> describing them in XML datatypes.
> 
> Seth Russell

Yes. That's one approach. But not necessarily the only or
most optimal approach for all circumstances.

IMO it should also be possible to assign types to values in
other ways, and there should be some official equivalence
logic defined for these variant methods.

One would presume that all of the following three examples
define precisely the same knowledge regarding data types:

--

<rdf:Description rdf:about="urn:foo:bar">
  <abc:someProperty>
    <rdf:Description>
      <rdf:type rdf:resource="x:dataType"/>
      <rdf:value>dataValue</rdf:value>
    </rdf:Description>
  </abc:someProperty>
</rdf:Description>

--

<rdf:Description rdf:about="urn:foo:bar">
  <abc:someProperty>dataValue</abc:someProperty>
</rdf:Description>

<rdf:Description rdf:about="abc:someProperty">
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="x:dataType"/>
</rdf:Description>

--

<rdf:Description rdf:about="urn:foo:bar">
  <abc:someProperty rdf:resource="x:dataType:dataValue"/>
</rdf:Description>

--

There are valid reasons why each of these options should
be allowed and ideally, these would have a consistent
interpretation by RDF applications.

Regards,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 15:47:03 UTC