W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Explicit RDF property for "literal has datatype D"?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:34:25 -0500
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Siarhei Uladzimiravich Kuryla <s.kuryla@jacobs-university.de>
Message-Id: <7558BF43-F9D0-4A03-99FE-4C86E655AE63@ihmc.us>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p a rdf:Property ;
>>>>>>>> rdfs:domain rdfs:Literal ;
>>>>>>>> rdfs:range rdfs:Datatype .
>>>>>
>>>>> _:x p xsd:date .
>>>>> _:x owl:sameAs  "2008-01-01" .
>>>>
>>>> did you mean:
>>>>
>>>> _:x p xsd:date .
>>>> _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01"^^xsd:date .
>>>>
>>>> otherwise you get some odd conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> - Steve
>>>
>>> I don't see any odd conclusions ... we have not said anything  
>>> about the
>>> realtionship between the subject and object of a p triple, other  
>>> than the
>>> usual they are related by the p-property.
>>>
>>
>> Right. BTW, you could now say that the domain of p was  
>> rdf:PlainLiteral :-)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
>
> Yes, except isn't that exactly wrong? At least by the desired sense
> noted in the topic of the mail message "literal has datatype D".
>
> A plain literal had datatype http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
> which isn't any datatype other than itself. It certainly isn't and
> xsd:date.
>
> Is what's trying to be said that a certain string should be
> interpreted as a certain datatype? But if that's the case, why not
> just write it "certain string"^^datatype? (if it is malformed, you
> will get an inconsistency, which is good!)
>
> Sorry if I'm being dense.

No, but I was probably making a mistake trying to be humorous about  
rdf:PlainLIteral, sorry.

Would it be wrong? It depends on exactly what we are talking about  
here. If the subject of :p is intended to be the datatyped literal,  
then right, it would be wrong to say it was a plain literal. But if  
the subject is supposed to be the character string of the literal,  
then this might be one way to say that. Though even then, it would, I  
agree, be potentially misleading.

The best way, if you can't put the literal in subject position, would  
be what Steve suggested above.

Pat

>
> -Alan
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
>> 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 22:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:13 UTC