Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:17:48 -0400
• To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20020715151748G.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:47:16 +0100

[...]

> >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>

You are correct.

> >[...]
> >
> > > 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

I will have to get back to you with definitive answers.

peter

Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 15:19:15 UTC