- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:52:26 -0400
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: 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." We are going in circles. I was responding to a proposal by Peter to incorporate datatyping information into the literal itself. That proposal involves extending the notion of 'literal' in RDF, so it's not either of the idioms. My point was only that one can achieve essentially the same effect by using idiom 1, without changing RDF syntax, and keeping the datatyping information as an explicit assertion in the RDF graph. I agree that none of this has any direct bearing on idiom 2, but that was not the point under discussion. My own current preference for idiom 2 is to allow it, but insist that what it says (in your example) is that age is a string. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 11:57:59 UTC