- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:45:14 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On first pass, I find this an improvement on the current datatyping, >and is far better suited to the requirements of CC/PP. > >I need to study this more carefully, but meanwhile have a couple of >small comments: > >>Second, we could introduce a special property called something like >>rdfd:rigidliteral, which forces a literal to be interpreted >>literally, as it were. This acts like a datatype property, but what >>it says is that the literal really does denote itself: its a kind >>of pre-emptive datatype-exclusion device which produces a datatype >>clash with any datatype. The semantics is that it forces D to be >>the identity map in its object, and it denotes equality. Then we >>could get the current meaning by writing things like > >Wouldn't asserting a datatype of xsd:string (which maps literal >strings to themselves) on the corresponding property have the same >effect? Yes, it would (provided we say that those strings in literals really are xsd:strings: Im not sure if some people might want to argue that each datatype defines it sown notion of 'string'.) I just thought we could use this without appealing to any external datatypes. Maybe this isnt such a great idea, in any case. >Or, for example, using xsd:string datatype mapping, as in: > > <ex:Jenny> <ex:age> _:x . > _:x <xsd:string> "10" . > >I can't see what value rdfd:rigidliteral would add. > >>One way to rule things like this out, if someone wanted to do that, would be: >> >><rdfs:range> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> < rdfd:rangedatatype> . > >Isn't that potentially non-monotonic? (I think this is a general >problem with making additional assertions about core RDF vocabulary.) I don't quite see how. It would certainly be rather a dangerous thing to assert in general, which is why I was only half-serious, but I think it would be monotonic. I hope so, anyway. Can you give more details? You have me worried. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)322 0319 cell 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 21:45:13 UTC