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

Re: A test case? [Re: Before we go on...]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:52:21 +0300
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E5DFA5.137EC%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-19 14:09, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


> I think the second and third antecedents should include something like:
> 
>   ?l a rdfs:Literal .
> 
> Because:
> 
>  { ?d a rdfd:Datatype . ?o ?d ex:uriref } log:implies { ?o rdfd:lex
> ex:uriref } .
> 
> I think is NOT a valid entailment.
>
> Or maybe the first test should include the conclusion:
> 
>   ?d rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd also suggest:
> 
> { ?p rdfd:dcrange ?d . ?s ?p ?l . ?l a rdfs:Literal } log:implies { [ ?d ?l
> ] } .

Well, Graham and I certainly are in sync on this one ;-)

I just suggested the exact same two changes, so I guess that must
mean something (or then, not ;-)

I think that this last closure rule, which provides the
datatype value interpretation for the combination of the
inline idiom and the global datatype assertion is the
solution to the present disagreement (presuming we all
can agree that the closure rule is acceptable).

It doesn't change the meaning of the literal node, it just
says that if you have the two statements together in a graph,
the inline idiom and the rdfd:datatype assertion, then you
can infer that a datatype value has been identified as a
value of the property.

Eh?

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 Friday, 19 April 2002 07:49:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:33 EDT