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

Re: Question about "cohabitation" of S idioms A and B

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:22:18 +0200
To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B864513A.B610%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-10 21:42, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 18:50 10/01/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> But taking the first range statement into account along with
>> the statements about Jenny, we also now have the implication
>> 
>>    _:1 rdf:type xsd:integer.lex .
> 
> The first range statement being:
> 
>   ex:age rdfs:range xsd:integer.lex .
> 
> which is inconsistent with:
> 
>   Jenny ex:age _:1 .
>   _:1 xsd:integer.map "22" .
> 
> as the latter entails:
> 
>   _:1 rdfs:type xsd:integer.val
> 
> and the intersection of xsd:integer.lex and xsd:integer.val is empty.
> 
> GIGO.

The examples I used were based on those given in Sergey's definition
of the A and B idioms. Perhaps there are errors there?

My very point was that if you use idiom A and B together, they get
in each other's way, or at least idiom B gets in the way of idiom A.

Thus, if the use of rdfs:range for idiom B is inconsistent with
knowledge expressed in idiom A, they cannot coexist in the same
knowledge base.

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 Friday, 11 January 2002 01:21:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:53 EDT