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

Re: RDF datatyping goals (action from teleconference)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:02:54 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B86A113E.BA37%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-15 14:38, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:

> At 09:45 AM 1/15/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> I'll also argue that (a) is semantically equivalent to (b) in the
> sense
>>> that if an RDF graph and any associated schema graphs are merged,
> the
>>> result can be interpreted per (a).
>> 
>> This I don't fully agree with. The typing knowledge defined in the
>> schema may have multiple possible interpretations.
>> 
>> The semantics of the rdfs:range 'constraint' (as I see it) is to
>> define an implicit union of data types, the members being the objects
>> of the rdfs:range, which may be used to
> 
> "intersection", not "union" (per WG resolution).

??? I understood that 'union' meant the intersection of
lexical and value spaces.

What's the difference?

> 
> I see nothing here that argues that the meaning of:
> 
>   Direct Graph + Schema Graph
> 
> should be any different to the meaning of the merge of those graphs.
> I.e. 
> the same conclusions can be drawn either way.

Right. OK. I understood your "merge" to mean asserting the
global knowledge defined in the schema in a local manner.

I.e. taking all P idioms and expressing them as D.

It looks like we agree.


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 Tuesday, 15 January 2002 10:02:07 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:54 EDT