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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:22:57 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEMCCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>
> I don't think rule 4 is valid. That is, Im not sure quite what
> ?l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
> is intended to convey, but if its supposed to say that the object of
> the previous triple is a literal, then the rule is not valid. Here's
> a counterexample:
>
> Suppose IEXT(I(<ex:PPP>)) is the identity map. Then for example I
> satisfies
>
> _:x <ex:PPP> "10" .
> <ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> .
>
> (map _:x to "10"; all literal strings are in the universe; "10" is in
> the lexical space of the datatype) but not
>
> _:x <ex:PPP> "10" .
> <ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> .
> _:x <ex:PPP> _:y .
> _:y rdfd:lex "10" .
>
> since this requires _:y to denote an integer, and so requires 10 to
> equal "10" in that datatyped interpretation.
>
>

I agree with Pat.

(I mean this in the sense of:
- I did not see the contradiction
- I imagine others did not either
- now that Pat spells it out, it looks to me as if he is reasoning correctly
- I think others may be interested in my confirming opinion as to the
correctness of Pat's reasoning.

i.e. no axes being ground here).

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 06:23:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:34 EDT