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

Re: Datatyping Summary

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:37:06 -0500
Message-ID: <3C586782.3070109@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sorry, what do you mean by "extended n-triples representation"?  Things 
are complicated enough trying to follow the various proposals and idioms 
thereof with a *fixed* definition of n-triples.  If we're going to allow 
extensions to n-triples, there are too many things allowed to vary, and 
too few things fixed.  Besides, if we weren't constrained by n-triples 
as they are now, there are all kinds of neat things we could do...  I 
want to see how things are going to actually be written in the notation 
we actually have.

--Frank


Brian McBride wrote:

> Ok Jeremy,
> 
> As I understand what you are suggesting here, is that under TDL, the 
> rule could be rewritten to get the desired effect, i.e. reflecting the 
> "literal is a pair" directly in an extended n-triples represention:
> 
>   <mary> <haircolor> (_, "red") .
> 
> and
> 
>   ?x <haircolor> (_, "red") => ?x <rdf:type> <redhead> .
> 
> one can conclude:
> 
>   ?x <rdf:type> <redhead> .
> 
> DanC - Do you buy this one.  Rewrite the rule and you get what you want.
> 
> Brian
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 16:33:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:03 EDT