- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 21:37:46 +0100
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Sandro, [...] > content negotiation thing is... difficult. I've tweaked it > a bit, but since it worked for me the first time, I don't > know how it's changed. I don't know how it's changed either, but at least it works for me now :-) Perhaps it's a bug in IE6. > > Also, in that file, could you please change rdf:ID to > > rdf:about? [...] > > Interesting. I just copied DAML for this. Do you > want to suggest they change? I took your advice. I will suggest that they change... I've already asked for the RDF Schema namespace to s/ID/about/ [1], and it's been on the issues list for ages [2]. [...] > So what I'm saying is that an n3 parser should pretend > to treat "abc" as shorthand for (string:U0041 string:U0042 > string:U0043) [which is shorthand for some daml:List > stuff] and then *HORRAY* we have nice, simple, useful, > interoperable, standard semantics for RDF Literals. That seems fair enough. Don't forget that there's already a URI scheme for literals, "data:". Instead of str:U0043, why not just use:- data:text/plain;UTF-8,a and for "abc":- data:text/plain;UTF-8,abc which still gets the notion of literals out of the model? Note also that CWM has a log:concat property with which one can bring literals together:- this log:forAll :x . { :x string:concat ("a" "b" "c") } log:implies { :abc :is :x } . although that retains literals in the model. I like the idea that there won't be any literals in the model, but will it work for datatyped strings? :year rdfs:range :Year . :SomeEvent :year (str:U0032 str:U0030 str:U0030 str:U0031) . implies:- (str:U0032 str:U0030 str:U0030 str:U0031) a :Year . implies:- :Year rdfs:subClassOf str:String . Which I guess is reasonable, just as any current datatype is a subClassOf rdfs:Literal. Are there any further advantages to this idea other than it gets rid of LV from the model theory? I also think it exposes a certain amount of nitpicky pedanticism behind the current rdfs:Literal threads... I've not had more problems in implementing literals in parsers than I have bNodes :-) Of course, until any behaviour is mandated by an RDF specification, it's not going to be consistently implemented (and even when it is, it's touch and go!). [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0300 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-abo ut -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 16:38:52 UTC