- From: Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:28:11 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
All, Dan Connolly wrote: > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > >>I am concerned that this model theory locks RDF into a particular >>way of interpreting literals, namely that the interpretation of a literal >>can be completely determined from its label, using a fixed mapping to >>literal values. >> > > I believe this is by design. It's an important requirement on > RDF syntax that it be "context free"... i.e. that this > level of meaning is syntactically evident. This is indeed an explicit a design decision, and related to the notions of weak typing vs. strong typing in programming languages. RDF is "weakly typed" in the sense that a schema is not needed for some rudimentary processing (this was a requirement during the RDF M+S WG work, but somehow I think it didn't get documented as one...). Think of Common Lisp vs. C++ ;-) Consequently, I think this means that I really like Patrick's "dt:date:2001-10-01T09:23:00Z" etc. proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0043.html). Regards, - Ora -- Ora Lassila mailto:daml@lassila.org http://www.lassila.org/ Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:28:05 UTC