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

Re: Feedback request

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:48:11 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b4ab9e87bec928b@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 09:28 PM 10/31/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>
>>Quick request(s) for feedback. There are 5 parts to this message.
>>
>>Please say if you think that any of the following entailments 
>>should NOT be valid in RDF or RDFS, or have any problems with the 
>>reasoning sketched. Obviously "10" can be any string.
>>
>>1. (RDF)
>>aaa ppp "10" .
>>-->
>>aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
>According to the rationale that got us here (i.e. for tidiness), I 
>think this MUST be valid.
>
>>2. (RDF)
>>aaa ppp "10"^^datatypefoo .
>>-->
>>aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
>Valid.
>
>>3. (RDF)
>>aaa ppp "10"@lang .
>>-->
>>aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
>Valid.
>
>>From the above, and assuming bare literals denote themselves, then 
>>IR must contain all bare literals (cuzof 1) and all values that any 
>>datatype can map them into (cuzof 2) and maybe all pairs of all 
>>those things with lang tags (not yet sure about that last one). So 
>>we might as well say that IR contains all of LV, seems to me. In 
>>which case we would get
>
>When you say "all pairs of things with lang tags", are to nrefering 
>to that which denotes or that which is denoted?

Denoted

>
>>4. (RDFS)
>>rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource .
>
>rdfs:Literal being anything denoted by a literal?

Yes

>
>>5. (RDFS)
>>aaa rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>>--->
>>aaa rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal .
>
>That has rdfs:Literal containing all datatype values, or the union 
>of all datatype value spaces?  (I think you said that before)  Seems 
>OK to me.
>
>So bare literals (lexical form) are rdfs:Literal values (because of 
>self denotation), but I not sure that says anything about typed or 
>language-paired literals.

That itself doesnt, but the cases 2 and 3 above do, implicitly.

>
>>------
>>
>>Terminology question: now we have lists, should the term 
>>'container' be understood to include lists as well as seqs, bags 
>>and alts? If so, does anyone have an suggestion for a generic term 
>>for the older containers? (Simple containers? Open containers? 
>>Bushy containers?)
>>
>>------
>>
>>Can anyone fill in the blank for
>>
>>rdfs:comment rdfs:range ??? .
>
>Ooooh! Interestring question.  If we agree that such comments are 
>always presented as strings in the RDF source, then (following DanC) 
>I suppose it's some class that contains xsd:string UNION 
><xsd:string,language-tag>.

Hmmm, do we have a name for that?

>
>(The caveat about strings:  do we allow a comment to be a URL 
>pointing to a document?  I don't think so, BICBW.)
>
>>------
>>
>>Er..sorry, I ought to know this, but I am honestly unable to recall 
>>where the hell we are now. Have we decided to NOT allow property 
>>datatyping, ie the use of a datatype URI as a property to link a 
>>node to a bare literal, with the datatype implication that the node 
>>denotes the resulting value? Or to ALLOW it? That is, should
>>
>>6.
>>aaa ppp "10"^^datatypefoo .
>>--->
>>aaa ppp _:xxx .
>>_:xxx datatypefoo "10"
>>
>>or not? If so, how about the reverse entailment??
>
>My understanding is that we're not specifiying it, but not prohibiting it.

OK< people seem to agree on that. I think that there is a small place 
in my brain labelled 'rdf datatyping' which has now rolled itself up 
into a ball and refuses to move.

Ta for replies.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 13:49:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:56 EDT