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

Re: datatyping unstaked

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:46:52 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020621130649.041f5060@joy.songbird.com>
To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 08:45 PM 6/14/02 -0500, patrick hayes wrote:

>>>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.

It's been a busy week, and I've lost my context.  I think I may have got 
myself confused about the "direction" of monotonicity here.  My concerns 
were that expectations about the meaning of "basic" RDF constructs may be 
confounded.

<aside>
My recollection is that I was considering the effect of such an addition on 
a subgraph like:
   <ex:Jenny> <ex:age> "10" .
   <ex:Joe> <ex:age> _:x .
   _:x <xsd:string> "10" .
   <ex:age> <rdfd:rangedatatype> <xsd:integer> .
which may be true under some interpretation, but in the presence of the 
additional subProperty the enlarged subgraph could be false under the same 
interpretation.  But I see that was just me confusing myself about 
monotonicity.
</aside>

#g




-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 11:30:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:20 EDT