At 16:00 24/11/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > > > Thus, reading the authoritative specs we work out what the values are, and > > they are the same. Hence, independent of whether our implementations > > actually do it, the relevant entailments are part of RDF datatyping. > >I'm fine with this as long as it is clear (somewhere) that >datatype entailments involving equality of values between >different datatypes are based on the definitions of the >datatypes themselves, and if the relationships between >the datatypes are not part of the formal definitions of >the datatypes, then the entailments cannot be determined. > >I.e. we need to be clear about the basis for the entailments >and not work solely on the basis of human intuition. Patrick, May I test my understanding of what you mean here. I offer two datatype definitions and an entailment. Datatype Definition 1: URI: http://example.org/datatypes#1 Lexical Space: {"1"} Values Space: {1} Mapping: {"1", 1} Comment: The value space of this datatype is the set containing only the integer 1. Datatype Definition 2: URI: http://example.org/datatypes#2 Lexical Space: {"one"} Values Space: {1} Mapping: {"one", 1} Comment: The value space of this datatype is the set containing only the integer 1. Does: <a> <b> "1"^^http://example.org/datatypes#1 . <c> <d> "one"^^http://example.org/datatypes#2 . entail <a> <b> _:v . <c> <d> _:v . The point of this test is that whilst it is true that: http://example.org/datatypes#1 rdfs:subClassOf http://example.org/datatypes#2 . http://example.org/datatypes#2 rdfs:subClassOf http://example.org/datatypes#1 . this is not explicitly stated in the definitions of the datatypes. BrianReceived on Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:17:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC