On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Jos De_Roo wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:05, Pat Hayes wrote: > > > > Then we can just say that for literals E, I(E) = E, and not > > > talk about things like LV and XL at all. Does anyone have any > > > philosophical objections to this? It would allow quite a few of the > > > lemmas to be stated with fewer qualifications, and the proofs to be > > > simplified. > > no objection, just praise Absolute agreement. I sent something like this to the list ages ago: see http://ioctl.org/rdf/literals which demonstrates how you can do tidy literals and support XSD datatypes - (and you'd probably implement it using something akin to jena's pair mechanism). -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk I am now available for general use under a modified BSD licence.Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 05:03:57 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:12 EDT