Re: model theory for RDF/S

From: Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org>
Subject: Re: model theory for RDF/S
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:28:11 -0400

> 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

There are other schemes that could make RDF syntax context free and
similarly leave RDF as weakly typed.  I would be very careful in adopting a
particular scheme for RDF literals without considering the alternatives.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 07:11:33 UTC