> I can't see how to get a literal2value
A problem more with XML Schema than with RDF. But of course that makes it
worse (since it affects both RDF and non-RDF applications) not better.
If even a way of expressing mappings towards canonical forms of datatypes
were available it would go a long way.
> map in RDF - there doesn't even seem to be
> a standardized way to point to a resource,
> which would provide such a map somehow.
Worse, to the extent that we can use xsi:schemaLocation with most uses of
XML Schema datatypes we can't do so nicely with RDF because the RDF will
treat it as a predicate (ironically it will then treat the value it gets as
a literal of type anyURI instead of as a resource!).
> This might be one of the reasons rdf-semantics
> is that weak on datatype entailments.
In fairness I think the real reason for this is that Rome wasn't built in a
day. While the speed at which the RDF WG get around to looking at a
particular issue may seem slow (a watched kettle never boils), the speed at
which they are developing the framework is pretty breathtaking.
> I don't think DCMI can issue any recommendation
> based on drafts, which may change till they
> reach W3C recommendation - or at least a level,
> where W3C gives an official "call for implementation"
> level to the papers, which are now just drafts.
Agreed. These issues aren't entirely settled for the RDF people. DCMI
shouldn't expect perfect papers to arrive fully-formed from the foreheads of
the RDF WG. This is no bad thing. It would be fruitful for DCMI people (or
just people with an interest in DC) to experiment with this, and to report
findings to the RDF WG. It is probably unwise though to react to every
development in RDF with a fury of activity intended to produce normative
declarations.
|