- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[Jonathan Borden]
It got me thinking about literal datatypes (the above considers XML
datatypes).
Why not:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="foo://bar">
<ex:property xsi:type="xsd:integer">10</ex:property>
</rdf:Description>
being defined to parse to:
<foo://bar> ex:property xsd:integer"10" .
wouldn't this solve much of the datatypes debate -- it would _syntactically_
distinguish typed literals, as Drew McDermott correctly points out is the
way to go, and would avoid issues related to nonmonotonicity related to
interpreting a triple based on a schema that may or may not be present.
This makes sense to me. It's more verbose than my ideal solution, but
it's also more extensible (given that new datatype qnames can be
added). And verbosity is considered a good thing on the Brave New Web :)
How would you handle typed attributes? Perhaps a property can only be
made an attribute if its values are strings.
-- Drew McDermott
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 10:31:58 UTC