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

RE: a few questions about literals

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:30:45 -0000
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001901c1c146$d2ae8a10$887ba8c0@mitchum>
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Pat Hayes:
>
> Do we want this to be true for literals as well? Eg should this
> be a  valid inference?
> 
> ex:Judy ex:age "10" .   |=      ex:Judy ex:age _:x .

+1
 

> ex:Jenny ex:age "10"  .
> "10" rdfs:dlex "12" .
> 
> which is so crazy that no-one should be surprised if it has crazy
>  entailments, right?

Yes, I don't see the need to protect people from themselves here.

 
> Anyway, if y'all agree that we should accept this inference, then
> I  think the simplest way to re-do the MT is to simply say
> up-front that  *all* RDF interpretations must include *all*
> literals in their 
> universe. 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.

MT simplicity is a good thing.


Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPH+6heaWiFwg2CH4EQIyIwCfQqwBovfS/rQZu/hLszcwtTYsIVcAoOv8
TB+j3udorh2O5So/9S6Uk9v5
=nxi1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:36:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:12 EDT