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

Datatyping, text case

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:03:32 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020201111450.03941eb0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy,

I think your revised TDL model theory addresses the big self-entailment 
problem, but I'm still concerned by the interaction between the denotation 
of literals as pairs, and the denotation of other nodes which nominally 
mean the same thing.  Basically, I'm not sure I understand how that is 
meant to work.

So here are a couple of test cases to prime the discussion:

Does this:
   ex:zero rdf:value "0" .
   ex:one ex:succ ex:zero .
   _:one ex:succ ex:zero .
   _:one rdf:value "1" .
entail this:
   ex:one rdf:value "1" .
?

Or does:
   ex:one ex:succ "0" .
   _:one ex:succ "0" .
   _:one rdf:value "1" .
entail:
   ex:one rdf:value "1" .
?

In each case, the short answer is fairly clearly "no".  So the real 
question is:  what else do I have to say, or what assumptions must I make 
about the nature of ex:succ.  Intuitively, ex:succ would conform to:

    IEXT(I(ex:succ)) = { <0,1>, <1,2>, <2,3>, ... etc. }

(I took a look at DanC's 
www.w3.org/2001/03swell/pra.n3http://www.w3.org/2001/03swell/pra.n3 for 
some clues, but couldn't really get any traction on it.)

#g


--------------------------
        __
       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 07:37:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:02 EDT