- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 08:44:48 +0300
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 2002-08-01 1:40, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>> I am not sure that
>>
>> Jenny age xsd:integer"10" .
>>
>> is effectively different than:
>>
>> Jenny age _:x
>> _:x xsd:integer "10" .
>
> It sounds like we are in violent agreement. OK, lets say they are not
> effectively different. The second one, however, is legal RDF, and the
> first one isn't. So why not use the one that is, since they are
> effectively the same? (Guha tells me that in his opinion, they are
> not effectively the same, and that the first has computational
> advantages over the second for writing APIs. OK, maybe: but that is a
> different point.)
You can do both, essentially, using current RDF.
C.f. http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pstickler-val-01.txt
I.e.
Jenny age <val:(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema%23integer)10> .
If you need a single identifier for a datatyped value, use a val URI.
This also affords the benefit of graph compression (tidyness) for all values
having the same datatype and lexical representation.
If one later wanted to support xsd:integer"10" as a notational shorthand
for the full URI, fine, they are functionally equivalent.
As for APIs, the val URI representation can be used as a normalized,
internal representation for datatyped values -- regardless of idiom
used on input.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 01:44:44 UTC