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 15:32:32 +0100
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFFB808354.C544C20A-ONC1256B04.004C8E50@bayer-ag.com>


> > >  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 wrote (but you cutted that)

...are making sense, also taken *together*
and their subjects are different nodes
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and I don't think one needs extra node labeling
(because one can talk about such *nodes*, be it in
the EC subset of Notation3)

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

sure, the subject is a node written "10"

> >   "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 ].

as Pat argued, it would be better to write that as

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

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

no, I meant what I wrote

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

or

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

which would require the assertion

  eg:shoeSize rdf:type daml:UniqueProperty.

to conclude that both object nodes "10"
and [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ] are the same thing
(but again you cutted that piece of text)

> > 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.

not lexical of course not

--
Jos
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 09:34:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:39 EDT