Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

At 07:01 13/07/2002 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff
>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:46:49 +0100
>
>[...]
>
> > We are proposing two principal idioms for representing datatyped
> > information.  The first looks like this:
> >
> >    <Jenny> <age>          _:a .
> >    _:a     <xsdr:decimal> "10" .
> >
> > This can be written in RDF/XML like this.
> >
> >    <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
> >      <foo:age xsdr:decimal="10"/>
> >    </rdf:Description>
> >
> > Here the b-node _:a denotes the integer 10 which can be represented in
> > decimal form as the string "10".
>
>Is it possible to have the first triple without the second?  It appears to
>not be possible in RDF/XML.  (Yes, this does make a difference.)

:)

It is possible:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <age>
       <rdf:Description/>
     </age>
   <rdf:Description>

or:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <age rdf:parseType="Resource"/>
     </age>
   <rdf:Description>



>[...]
>
> > We believe this idiom to be quite straightforward,
>
>I disagree.  This idiom requires that blank nodes be able to denote data
>values, and if the first triple above is not *always* paired with something
>like the second triple, then there may be computational consequences for
>languages like OWL.

This is important, though its another issue, rather than the one we are 
currently seeking input for.  How can we turn that "may" into a more 
definite statement?

Brian

Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 14:48:17 UTC