W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > September 2001

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

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:49:56 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114BFED@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: 27 September, 2001 16:50
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr; www-rdf-interest@w3.org;
> www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> [...]
> > The way I currently do qualified values is to employ an explicit
> > 'qualified value' class x:QValue for which the following
> > constraints/characteristics are defined:
> [...]
> > Anyone else think this would be a good idea to pursue?
> Yes, I prefer something like that too... in particular, see:
>   Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL
>   proposal Jan 2001
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24
> But it's hard to say this is a clarification of RDF 1.0...
> i.e. it's hard to say that implementors of RDF 1.0 should have
> implemented it this way.

Well, depending on where one likes to draw lines (and it seems
most folks have their own unique opinion on that ;-) I think it
would be reasonable to ground the semantics of such a key construct
in RDF space, as a specialized case of rdf:value. I.e., rather
than x:QValue, one could define rdf:qvalue and such a typed
anonymous node would have clearly and explicitly defined semantics
and constraints per the official RDF standard -- such that someone
producing large amounts of knowledge using such constructs can
be assured that any RDF compliant system will enforce those constraints
and any system vendor creating an RDF application will be fully
aware of the intended purpose and semantics of such constructs.

The intimate relationship that the rdf:qvalue class would have with
the rdf:value class seems (to me at least) to justify it being
grounded in the same semantic layer, rather than somewhere else
(such as RDFS, DAML, DC, etc.) 

> [why the crosspost, by the way?]

Just hitting "Reply to All" ;-)  Which list did you think needs
to be removed?



Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 02:50:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:39 UTC