W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: RDF Datatyping Working Draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:31:42 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAEJFCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Sorry Pat I had skipped right over section 5 on my first speed-read :(, so I
think probably misunderstood some of the intent.

The picture in section 6.1.2 looks like RDF Model Theory without any
datatyping.

The picture in section 6.1.3 seems to have gone further than is licensed by
section 5.
In section 5, as I understand it, John and Judy get age 25 (the integer -
assuming knowledge of the actual l2v mapping) whereas Jane has age "25" the
string.

My asserted non-monotonicity occurs when John, Judy and Jane all have the
same age as in 6.1.3.

Here's why.

Consider:

<John> <ex:age> _:x .
_:x <xsd:integer> "25" .
<Judy> <ex:age> _:y .
_:y <rdfd:lex> "25" .
<ex:age> <rdfd:range> <xsd:integer> .
<Jane> <ex:age> "25" .
<foo> <bar> "25" .
<bar>  <rdfd:range> <xsd:string> .


In the model theoretic interpretation with no datatyping (and tidy literals)
this entails:

<Jane> <ex:age> _:a .
<foo> <bar> _:a .

but not

<Jane> <ex:age> _:c .
<John> <ex:age> _:c .

In the datatyping interpretation (following the picture 6.1.3) this entails:

<Jane> <ex:age> _:c .
<John> <ex:age> _:c .

but not

<Jane> <ex:age> _:a .
<foo> <bar> _:a .

quod erat demonstrandum

Jeremy


Jeremy:
> >
> >Section 6.1.2 RDF Model Theory Interpretation
> >http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/RDFDatatyping.html#ntoc_26
> >
> >and
> >
> >Section 6.1.3 RDF Datatyping Interpretation
> >http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/RDFDatatyping.html#ntoc_27
> >
> >are different.
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 14:32:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:20 EDT