- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:43:11 +0100
- To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...]
> > if you (in TDL-global) only have the fact :Jenny :age "30"
> > and *no* range information for :age then you have *no*
> > interpretation for "30"
>
> Correct, insofar as the RDF expressed knowledge is
> concerned. But how does that change the validity or
> applicability of a TDL interpretation?
>
> The literal is either a typed data literal or not.
>
> If it is, then the literal is a lexical form for some
> unknown datatype.
>
> Perhaps in the next second, an RDF schema with the
> needed datatyping information will be loaded -- or
> perhaps the absence of any determinable type will
> lead the application to go looking for a schema that
> provides it.
>
> It's not a shortcoming of TDL that the type is not
> known. How is the situation any different for S?
is S "30" is *always* interpreted as XL("30")="30"
--
Jos
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 05:02:41 UTC