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

RE: DATATYPES: mental dump.

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:46:49 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101074b819f53be6ce@[]>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > >I.e., I've understood that my X proposal was quite
>>  >similar in principle to your P++ proposal in that it
>>  >defines urirefs and literals as just labels of nodes,
>>  >and nodes are unique in the graph,
>>  I am puzzled, since this is just true of all RDF graphs: urirefs and
>>  literals ARE labels of nodes, and nodes ARE unique. Right. So what
>>  does it mean to say that the X proposal 'defines' this to be the
>>  case? All of RDF assumes this to be the case, surely (??)
>Not in terms of "tidying".
>Of course, nodes themselves are unique. What I meant is that
>while nodes with the same uriref labels might get merged,
>nodes with the same literal labels (or no labels) would

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree that the P(++) and X require literal nodes to 
be nontidy.  P++ uses the node as the carrier of the datyping 
information in the model theory.

>Thus, each literal is "hosted" by its own node and those
>don't ever merge. This allows literals (or rather their nodes)
>to serve as subjects.

Actually that is a separate issue, I think. One could have literal 
subjects with or without the tidiness condition. For example P (not 
P++) requires nontidy literals but doesn't require literal subjects.

IN haste

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 17:46:36 UTC

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