- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:21:14 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat,
>
>Should the datatyping MT include the following, to specify the
>interpretation of the blank node and literal for the datatype
>property idiom?
>
>For any literal "LLL", if E contains the triples
>
> <ddd, rdf:type, rdfd:datatype>
> <bbb, aaa, ccc>
> <ccc, ddd, "LLL">
Is this the new Ntriples notation? (Did I miss something?)
>then I(ccc) = L2V(I(ddd))("LLL") is defined
>
>???
I think the best way to do this would be to say that there just is a
notion of a datatype, that L2V is always defined on datatypes (both
being global semantic assumptions) and the semantic condition on
rdfd:datatype is that ICEXT(I(rdfd:datatype)) contains only
datatypes. Then the rest follows from this. That would be preferable
to imposing an extra semantic condition onto rdf:type.
The corresponding API would be that whenever it finds or concludes a
triple of the form
ddd rdf:type rdfd:datatype .
a datatyping RDF engine ought to take the uriref <ddd> and try to
find its datatyping specification in some usable form, and complain
if it can't find it.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:21:19 UTC