RE: datatypes and MT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> Sent: 14 November, 2001 14:11
> To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: datatypes and MT
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> >  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...

Agreed. The value is denoted by the pairing of lexical form to data type.
 
> >  Now, the question arises, is
> >  that semantic value a string or (say) a number? The 
> various proposals
> >  answer that question differently.
> 
> indeed
> 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, 

But only if you really mean that each literal above
is a separate, unique node and that node has context
within a specific statement. I.e.

_1:"10" rdf:type xsd:decimal.
_2:"10" rdf:type xsd:string.
_3:"10" rdf:type xsd:float.
_4:"10" rdf:type xsd:double.
_5:"10" rdf:type xsd:gYear.
_6:"10" rdf:type xsd:gMonth.
_7:"10" rdf:type xsd:gDay.
_8:"10" rdf:type xsd:hexBinary.

I.e. it is the node, not the literal, that is
the subject of the above statements.

>   "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 ].

Do you rather mean

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

   eg:me eg:shoeSize _1:"10" .
   _1:"10" rdf:type xsd:decimal .

> Another assumption is that
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-current-draft.html
> is not excluding literals in the rules for RDFS entailment e.g.
> 
>   rdfs3
>   xxx aaa uuu . aaa rdfs:range zzz . |- uuu rdf:type zzz .
>           ^^^yyy                        ^^^yyy

If you mean that rdfs:subClassOf relations between data types
defines a relation between lexical spaces, then I disagree.

Cheers,

Patrick

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 08:39:54 UTC