- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:22:15 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Jan 15, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Drew McDermott wrote: >> [Bijan Parsia] >> I think that interesting structured literals can do a fair bit. > > I guess I don't know what "literal" means. What does it mean? (Just > point me to the right section of the right technical working group > recommendation working paper formal normative note.) Sure. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1 Interesting use of XMLLiterals, especially, if you want to use XML schema complex datatypes requires solving: """Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to use user-defined XML Schema datatypes in OWL.""" But I believe Peter has a solution that he in fact proposed to the XML Schema working group. There's no fundamental technical issue about complex types, only the standardization of names. If RDF/XMLLiterals (or RDF/N3 literals) proved of special interest, we could coin uris for them and ask the community of tool builders to take those into account. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 12:25:56 UTC