From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/07/01
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > It appears to me that Dan's proposal is to turn every property (that has a > datatype as its type) into two properties, one that maps into the string > and one that maps into the datum corresponding to the string. (Maybe the > proposal is even to have multiple properties, one that maps into the > string, and one that maps into a datatype reading of that string, for every > possible datatype.) > > I would be much happier with a solution that had a single property, namely > size, that mapped directly into a datatype. I don't see any benefits from > having these multiple properties; only disadvantages. The advantage is that parsing formulas (RDF documents) remains independent of other stuff, including trust issues. Otherwise, if I put the range(size, Decimal) information in in file X, and then I <size>10</size> in file Y, the interpretation of Y depends on whether I have seen (or believed etc.) file X. That doesn't seem workable to me. I might like a simpler solution too, but I don't see how it can be done. > Further, it appears to me that Dan's proposal breaks RDF in a very > significant fashion, requiring literals (or at least datatype values) to be > the source of properties. I don't see this as breaking RDF. It's always been the case that you could look at the string "xyz" as the resource data:,xyz and use it as the subject of an assertion. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST