>On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Dave Beckett wrote:
>
>>
>> >>>"Patrick.Stickler" said:
>> > [lots]
>>
>> Don't read into a proposed N-Triples syntax change more than I wrote.
>> I could have put it has datatype(decimal, "2.0") or somesuch.
>> Specifically don't read that as qnames but evocative of how XSD is
>> used in XML; similar how the xsi:type is being used in this RDF/XML -
>> a special attribute.
>>
>> But I'm still waiting for the triples for these RDF/XML + xsi:type
>> examples. Which is hard to do if they have no n-triples syntax.
>> I'll create a better N-triples if needed when I'm clear what (if
>> anything) has changed in the graph. Catch 22.
>
>What's changed in the graph is that the space of "literals" has
>expanded; that is that
>
> jenny age "10" .
>
>and
>
> jenny age number(10) .
>
>are distinct triples, but that
>
> jenny age number(10) .
> bob age number(10) .
>
>indicates that jenny and bob really do have the same age.
>
>As to how much it has expanded: this proposal seems to be capable of
>going two ways:
>
>1. the space of literals is expanded by a small set of other literal
>types to provide a sufficient foundation for datatyping to be built
>upon. That a small set can be sufficient is indicated by the success
>people have in using RDBM systems, I suppose. This proposal would then
>need guidelines as to what to do with other "datatypes": eg: factor out
>units in property values; use uri-labelled resources for enumerations
>and taxons; use graph-structure to express compound types.
>
>This reading means that the RDF parser must have a transform from some
>serialised form to the appropriate value, but that the values are what
>are present in the graph. In this case, the "hook" for that transorf is
>the xsi:type attribute. The space of literals is not extnsible by third
>parties.
>
>Presumably for datatyping and range constraints, etc, rdf:Literal
>(rdfs:Literal? I forget) is subclassed into numbers (or ints and reals),
>strings, langstrings, whatever.
>
>That literals are essentially self-denoting entities is obvious in this
>setup.
Well, no; in fact, they can't be self-denoting in this setup. If
(int)10 is supposed to denote an integer, then if it were
self-denoting it would have to be an integer, which it isn't. In
fact, you can't put integers into syntax, so *anything* that denotes
integers isn't self-denoting.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.eduhttp://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes