- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:12:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[Pat Hayes]
But I don't see the real utility of the suggestion [to write,
e.g., the literal 10 as xsd:integer"10"] in this case. It provides
no extra expressive ability; at best it saves a triple here or
there; but on the other hand it complicated the syntax. So this is
a syntactic trade-off, and I guess I think that on balance its not
worth the trouble. We can get the same effect by using a bnode and
an extra triple, in effect writing the typed literal as a triple:
Jenny age _:x .
_:x xsd:integer "10" .
Isn't this what was earlier called "Idiom 1"? I take it no one
disagrees with the use of Idiom 1; the problem is that people like
Idiom 2
<age>10</age>
or perhaps 2b <.... age="10" />
(I express these in XML style just to savor their rich ambiguity.)
So the problem is to fix Idiom 2. Saying "You can always use Idiom
1" does not answer the question, unless you really mean, "Abandon
Idiom 2."
-- Drew McDermott
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 20:12:41 UTC