- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:27:32 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Patrick, I find your response interesting, and I will think about it some more. I am far from convinced - but your argument below might have some merit. Jeremy Jeremy: > > 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 . Patrick: > No. This still holds, if _:a denotes the literal "25". I.e. both > Jane and foo have a property which share the same object node, > the literal node "25". > > What would not hold is > > foo bar _:c . > > Thus, more explicitly, both of the following are true in the > datatyping interpretation: > > Jane ex:age <val:(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema%23integer)25> . > John ex:age <val:(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema%23integer)25> . > > and also > > Jane ex:age "25" . # this doesn't change > foo bar "25" . > > but not > > foo bar <val:(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema%23integer)25> . > > Is there really non-montonicity here? > >
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 04:27:51 UTC