- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:59:23 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-06 18:04, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > > >>> My question is about the lack of an explicit triple giving the dType, this >>> was one of my problem cases in the TDL model theory. >> >> The whole point of the 'ranging' semantic condition is to allow >> <range> info to entail <dtype> info, so that if the 'local' idiom >> works then the 'global' one will as well (though you have to do some >> extra inference, of course). It works for all the cases that use >> bnodes, but it doesn't work very well for the inline-literal case. >> >> Thats also why one needs to use a separate namespace (or some >> equivalent trick) to stop having too many possible leaks from >> rdfs:range to rdf:type. If we only used local typing there wouldnt be >> any real need for that. >> >> Pat > > >If we went with the revised global idiom that is a derivative >of the local idiom with rdf:type optional, but with the bNode >I.e. > > Bob ex:age _:1 . > _:1 rdf:value "30" . > >Then can we also get away with rdf:type rather than rdf:dtype? NOt sure I follow which revised global you are referring to (pointer??), but I doubt it. Seems to me that there really isn't ANY way to use 'normal' rdfs reasoning to connect rdfs:range with rdf:type that can possibly be a safe way to do datatyping, and still have the bnodes denote values. > >If so, then I think that's another point in favor of the >convergence proposal, since we don't have to add any new >vocabulary to RDF at all. If it can be done it would certainly be a plus. I don't see how, though. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 18:58:45 UTC