RE: Datatyping Summary

Responses to simple questions only.

> For one thing, it seems ugly. But that's a matter of taste,
> not one I'd expect folks to find compelling.

Not the way I would implement it either.

> Another thing: when you say ?y != rdf:value do you mean
> the syntactic term isn't rdf:value?

Yes.

> Or perhaps you're just proving that TDL is implementable,
> and we shouldn't take the proof construction method too
> seriously?

Precisely.


>Maybe something like this?
>
> 	ex:age rdfs:range dt:decimal.
> 	ex:somebody ex:age "abc".
>
> ... where a datatypes implementation would be expected to complain
> because that entails
> 	"abc" rdf:type dt:decimal.
> but we know that "abc" isn't a decimal literal.

That's certainly one appropriate test.
Also we may find some entailment tests.

[ Query omitted from this response ]
>
> > Graham, does this adequately address your concern about self-entailment?
>
> It does address the self-entailment issue, I suppose.

Thank you for your enthusiasm!


> I don't understand that. I don't see any closed-world assumptions in S.
[[[ 4.9 // idiom P
Notice that for the above definition to be well-formed, we need to be able
to enumerate all datatype mappings.
]]]

That is a closed world assumption.

Jeremy