RE: RDF Datatyping MT *does* define Datatyped Literal Pairings

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> >
> > To conclude that Jenny's ex:age is ten would be a mistake, an invalid
> > inference. We should make this painfully clear to users, so they do
> > not get their RDF in a muddle.
> >
>
> Smell the coffee!
>
> The WG did agree at the f2f that the lack of "jeremy's entailment" was an
> issue.
>
> Pat is speaking wisdom here. "jeremy's entailment" cannot possibly hold if
> Jenny's ex:age is the string "10".
>
> The WG can't have its tidiness cake and eat it.

In my* opinion, the cost of having to wrap "...has a lexical
representation of..." around my model of RDF properties is painful;
"what Jeremy said," basically.

jan

* insert "humble" here

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Goth isn't dead, it's just lying very still and sucking its cheeks in.

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 05:30:47 UTC