Am 25.08.2013 19:19, schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
If we have an IRI DV, considering that URLs are special IRIs, it seems clear that IRI would be the best way of storing them.
The best way of storing them really depends on the storage platform. It may be a string or something else.
I think the real issue here is that we are exposing something that is really an internal detail (the data value type) instead of the high level information we actually should be exposing, namely property type.
I think splitting the two was a mistake, and I think exposing the DV type while making the property type all but inaccessible makes things a lot worse.
In my opinion, data should be self-descriptive, so the *semantic* type of the property should be included along with the value. People expect this, and assume that this is what the DV type is. But it's not, and should not be used or abused for this purpose.
Ideally, it should not matter at all to any 3rd party if use use a string or IRI DV internally. The (semantic) property type would be URL, and that's all that matters.
I'm quite unhappy about the current situation; we are beginning to see the backlash of the decision not to include the property type inline. If we don't do anything about this now, I fear the confusion is going to get worse.
-- daniel _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
