Re: Concrete types: next steps?

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 02/06/01

Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> At the risk of being incredibly naive, I suggest that there is a fairly easy way out of this:
> [1] We adopt the proposal from Ian and Peter

I presume you mean
 Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:09:32 GMT

> [2] This commits us to a semantics for the strictly separated use of  "predefined" and "user-defined" classes (my attempt to use better names than abstract and concrete),

I still don't find the motivation for this compelling, but
I don't have any particular reason to object.

But this isn't the only issue I see...

> Tell me where I'm being too optimistic.

Surface syntax.

(1) folding XML Schema datatype declarations
and xsi:type into RDF; where is this specified?

(2) how do we interpret basic RDF syntax? i.e.
what formula is this?

	<rdf:Description about="#something">

would I translate that to KIF as
	(myNS:size #something 6)
	(myNS:size #something "6")

The proposal from Ian and Peter seems to make the
basic RDF syntax ambiguous.

My suggestion is to interpret the above as

	(myNS:size #something "6")
along with
	(and (someOtherProperty #something 6)
		(rdf:value 6 "6")
		(valueProperty myNS:size someOtherProperty))

Dan Connolly, W3C
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
  (put return phone number in from/subject)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST