- 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>
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 UTC