RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

I think that part of the 'problem' here is that we have multiple
type-systems:

1) media types
2) document types (valid under some form of schema - scoped by media
type in some cases)
3) xml document types (valid under  DTD, XML Schema, other schema...)
4) typed element and attribute content carried within some bounded part
of a document.

and that we might want literals of differing granularity.


Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden
> Sent: 29 October 2004 22:08
> To: Chris Lilley; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information 
> resource")
> 
> 
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> >With the proviso that I would prefer
> >
>
>data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",some%20percent%20escaped%20literal%20va
lue
> >
> >It seems a perfectly fine way to define a literal. Its also a URI,
its 
> >moderately compact, the network performance is very good :) it has a 
> >defined media type, its clear exactly what the representation is, its

> >clear that its always available and does not vary by media type, 
> >referer, time of day, etc.
> >  
> >
> This does seems reasonable but would require some changes to 
> RDF that probably could be worked out but might be less 
> straighforward than you might initially suspect. The "new" 
> RDF literals are binary, i.e. consist of a string literal 
> followed by a "^^" and then a URI datatype. So somehow that 
> would need to be fit with data: URIs.
> 
> There might be other issues with OWL. As I recall, one of the 
> reasons to distinguish between owl:ObjectProperty (URIs) and 
> owl:DatatypeProperty
> (literals) is that there are some issues in reasoning when 
> regarding integers as URIs. For example suppose one restricts 
> the rdf:range of a particular datatype property to 
> "xsd:positiveInteger". Without special knowledge (e.g. of 
> integer arithmetic) you would need to represent the datatype 
> class as an infinite set of data: URIs... typically a 
> reasoning engine handles such XSD datatypes as special cases 
> i.e. falls out of strict FOL/DL. I suppose such engines could 
> parse URIs, but somehow we would need a way to embed a 
> datatype specifier in the data: URI. Not impossible but not 
> entirely trivial either.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 10:15:24 UTC