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

Re: Untyped literals/datatyping: another test case

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:56:51 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE7ACAC22.82079413-ONC1256C45.0030268B-C1256C45.00312697@agfa.be>


>>This simple entailment test came to me while formulating some words about

>>datatyping...
>>
>>   ex:prop rdf:range xsd:integer .
>>   ex:subj ex:prop "10" .
>>
>>entails/doesnot entail:
>>
>>   ex:subj ex:prop xsd:integer"10" .

doesnot entail

>So let me check my understanding here.  With tidy semantics, this
>entailment does not hold, because if it did, then given:
>
>   <a> <b> "10" .
>   <c> <d> "10" .
>
>we entail:
>
>   <a> <b> _:l .
>   <c> <d> _:l .

that's also my understanding

>If we now add to the premises
>
>   <b> rdfs:range xsd:string .
>   <d> rdfs:range xsd:decimal .
>
>then the entailment would no longer hold.
>
>That would be non-monotonic and monotonicity is a must for the model
theory.

right

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

PS we have reimplemented typed literals as just constants
   (before they were functional terms which we will omit)
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 05:03:57 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:21 EDT