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

Re: why not take just the 2 ???

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:12:20 +0200
To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8834A24.CFF8%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-03 15:22, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:


>> Thirdly, having the range of a literal node as
>> *.lex and the range of a bnode *.val is precisely
>> the problem that S has with cohabitation of its
>> local and global idioms. One cannot then define
>> a range for the local idiom intended to express
>> a constraint without conflict of interpretation
>> (is the bnode *.lex or *.val?)
> 
> well, one can with the axiom [*]
> { ?s ?p ?o . ?p rdfs:range xsd:int,lex } ->
>   { ?s ?p [ xsd:int,map ?o; rdf:dtype xsd:int,val ] }

Sorry, no. This doesn't work if you have in the same
graph

   Jenny ex:age _:1 .
   _:1 xsd:int.map "30" .
   _:1 rdf:dtype xsd:int.val .
   ex:age rdfs:range xsd:int.val .

   Jenny ex:age "30" .
   ex:age rdfs:range xsd:int.lex .

This entails

   _:1 rdf:type xsd:int.lex .
   "30" rdf:type xsd:int.val .

(of course understanding that the last ntriple
 is not valid, since literals can't be subjects,
 but you get the point)

This is the crux of the S-A/S-B incompatability
issue.

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 Sunday, 3 February 2002 13:11:10 EST

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