Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
ops, accidentally sent too eraly
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
...
:me foaf:name [
ex:value 'nathan' ;
ex:type xsd:string ;
ex:language 'en-gb' .
] .
foaf:name has range rdfs:Literal, this still allows us to say:
:me foaf:name [
ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' .
]
in this case we know about the bnode that it stands for a literal value and
the ex:sha_1 value of that literal.
your way of specifying the type of the literal reminds me the recent
discussion started by Henry Story:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Feb/0174.html
following this we could also say:
:me foaf:name [
xsd:string 'nathan' ;
ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' .
] .
which expresses the same as:
:me foaf:name [
owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string;
ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' .
] .
so are we saying that all of these express the same:
:me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string .
:me foaf:name [
xsd:string 'nathan' .
] .
:me foaf:name [
owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string .
] .
:me foaf:name [
rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string .
] .
:me foaf:name :myname .
:myname xsd:string 'nathan' .
:me foaf:name :myname .
:myname owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string .
:me foaf:name :myname .
:myname rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string .
?
I can see the rdf:value and owl:sameAs versions expressing the same,
unsure about the xsd:string version..
what about..
:London rdfs:label [ rdf:value "London"@en, "Londres"@fr, "Лондон"@ru ].
or..
:London rdfs:label
[ rdf:value "London"@en ] ,
[ rdf:value "Londres"@fr ] ,
[ rdf:value "Лондон"@ru ] .
And do some funkier stuff:
:me foaf:mbox :myemail ;
:myemail ex:value <mailto:[email protected]> ;
ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' ;
dcterms:created '2010-06-03T15:19:35-05:00' ;
dcterms:replaces :oldmail .
:oldmail ex:value <mailto:[email protected]> .
so because of the way ex:value works, in there we have the triple:
<mailto:[email protected]> dcterms:replaces <mailto:[email protected]> .
ex:way seems to work the same way as owl:sameAs
ex:sha_1 to me seems to make sense with literals but not with a mailbox,
there the foaf-approach of having a distinct property convinces me more:
mbox point to the mailbox which is a resource typically identified by its
mailto-uri, mbox_sha1sum by contrast point to a literal with an
sha1-encoding of the mailto-uri of an email address of the subject. Your
second usage of ex:sha1 ties a resource to its name which seems very
limiting.
the statement "<mailto:[email protected]> dcterms:replaces <mailto:
[email protected]> ." seems however perfectly sound I don't see why this
should need the construct with ex:value an the additional node.
cheers for the comments,
Nathan
