W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: datatypes and MT

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:11:29 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFA69078F4.D644206D-ONC1256B04.0034A662@bayer-ag.com>


>  Part of the very idea of a literal (as opposed to a uriref) is that
>  its semantic value depends only on its form and the datatyping scheme
>  in use, and not on other aspects of the RDF interpretation. So if the
>  literal itself is 'bound' to a datatyping scheme, then the semantic
>  value of the literal is established.

nice for the primer...

>  Now, the question arises, is
>  that semantic value a string or (say) a number? The various proposals
>  answer that question differently.

I think that following assertions

  "10" rdf:type xsd:decimal.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:string.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:float.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:double.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:gYear.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:gMonth.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:gDay.
  "10" rdf:type xsd:hexBinary.

are making sense, also taken *together*
and their subjects are different nodes
and one could write something like

  "10" rdf:type xsd:decimal; is eg:shoeSize of eg:me.

to say something about a *particular* node
(because the ';' repeats that particular subject)
or something like

  eg:me eg:shoeSize "10", [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ].

(but then we have to assume that eg:shoeSize is an ont:UniqueProperty)

Another assumption is that
is not excluding literals in the rules for RDFS entailment e.g.

  xxx aaa uuu . aaa rdfs:range zzz . |- uuu rdf:type zzz .
          ^^^yyy                        ^^^yyy

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 07:12:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC