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

Re: Latest iteration of RDF Datatyping WD (ship it!)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:59:44 +0300
To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E1FAF0.1335C%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-16 15:12, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:

> 
> [...]
> 
>> I'm still wondering about the necessity of 2b. It's not
>> quite as troublesome to me as e.g. inferring a datatype
>> property idiom from an inline idiom, but I'm still not
>> sure it is essential.
>> 
>> Can you clarify for me what breaks if it is removed?
> 
> well, it's just that
> entailing
> 
> <http://example.org/dt#Jenny> <http://example.org/dt#age> _:z .
> _:z <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#number> "35" .
> 
> out of
> 
> ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p7.nt>
> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p7s.nt> )
> 
> seems ok to me
> but it's not that something would break of course

Then, in the spirint of Occam and keeping the set of
closure rules to the bare minimum necessary to capture
the essential semantics, I'll leave it out.

Is that OK with you, Pat?

> 
>> Also, if 2b is present, then 2a is unnecessary, since
>> the rdf:type of ?o can then be inferred from the
>> rdfs:domain of ?d.
> 
> right, ok, will do that

But now, in the absence of 2b, 2a is needed. What it
really boils down to is a choice between 2a or 2b, and
2a seems the more conservative.

Cheers,

Patrick 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 08:57:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:30 EDT