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

Re: Hang on a second... Re: Datatype test cases: important ones (please have a look)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:49:03 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b28ba0310df4828@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 11:21 21/11/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>[...]
>
>>But its not valid for rdf:XMLLiteral, as I understand it. And since 
>>this is now in RDF, some datatyping is included in RDF entailment.
>
>Oh bu**er.  Pat can you make the call this week.

Yes.

>Can we have a discusion of how much datatying moves into RDF.  I was 
>kinda hoping this would be pretty opaque.

Look, I CAN leave it the way it is, more or less. I had been trying 
to make it be that the document was organized in layers like:

basic graph entailment
RDF and RDF entailment
RDFS and RDFS entailment
Datatyping and D-entailment

.Keeping it layered and having XMLLiteral in the RDF namespace means 
I should put the XML datatyping into the second layer, and the rest 
of datatyping stays where it is but now needs to be rewritten a 
little (that is no big deal). BUt this changes the definition of 
rdf-entailment and hence of rdfs_entailment. Which is rather a bigger 
deal.

Jeremy apparently wants to not have the namespace change make any 
difference to the entailments. LIke I said, we could go that way, and 
it would be a lot less of a change. It then reads kind of oddly, 
though, in that just one thing in the RDF namespace isn't actually 
given any semantics in RDF or in RDFS, but requires access to a 
datatype. But there isn't any datatype for it: the last section 
refers dtype issues to the owner of the datatype, and we ARE the 
owner of this datatype, so its up to us to say what its semantics is, 
right? And if we are doing it, why aren't we doing it in RDF 
already???

I assumed that the namespace change was intended to lead to all these 
changes to the entailments. If not, then I should probably leave well 
enough alone; and then its just a matter of editing rdfs/rdf here and 
there and putting a bit of protective prose explaining why 
rdf-entailment ignores rdf:XMLLiteral.

Anyone object to that?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thursday, 21 November 2002 17:49:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:08 EDT