Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

   [Patrick Stickler]
   > > I would myself love to see a data type URI approach by which 
   > > otherwise "literal" values could be defined as instances of a 
   > > given data type URI. E.g.
   > > 
   > >    dt:integer:5
   > >    dt:token:en
   > >    dt:date:2001-09-27
   > >    dt:time:2000-11-01T17:32:20Z
   > >    dt:float:38829.11883292
   > >    ...
   > 
   > So would I...

   Anyone else think this would be a good idea to pursue?

Yes, although it's not clear to me how we are to interpret
dt:date:2001-09-27.  Is the idea that 'date' is a resource (namespace?
URI?) identifying a convention for how the literal is to be parsed and
internalized?

Also, as written literals can't include spaces.  The literal should be
enclosed in doublequotes, with a universal convention about how
to put unusual characters (such as " itself) inside doublequotes.

The good thing about this proposal is that it doesn't commit anyone to
a universal literal-syntax scheme, although all the obvious data types
should have standard encodings.

The other good thing is that it isn't the current system, which I find
baffling most of the time, and clumsy on those occasions when I
imagine I understand it.

The proposal seems to entail that literals name resources after all.
This strikes me as correct, and I have trouble understanding why
DAML+OIL embodies the opposite intuition.  I thought everything was a
resource.  If so, then it from the fact that literals are names of
things, it follows pretty trivially that literals are names of
resources.  (I can never remember if "resource" means the thing or its
name, and the same for "literal," so if I've gotten it wrong please
revise the paragraph accordingly.)

                                             -- Drew McDermott

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 17:26:23 UTC