W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:07:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4182B118.3040305@openhealth.org>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Chris Lilley wrote:

>With the proviso that I would prefer
>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.

Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 21:07:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC