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

Re: details of rdf:datatype?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:49:56 +0200
To: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF33B86B5C.C15DC650-ONC1256C53.005403D2-C1256C53.0056FAA2@agfa.be>


>> > My take is that only the first case is RDF-entailed:  if the datatype
and
>> > text are the same for two literals then they must denote the same
value.
>>
>>But they are not the same datatype. They are different URIs, and RDF
>>cannot know that there is any intersection of the value spaces of
>>xsd:integer and xsd:decimal. Thus the first case is not RDF-entailed.
>
>Oops, I missed that.  Yes, if the datatype URIs are different then IMHO
RDF
>(alone) cannot infer an equivalence.

not with following (as part of rdfs)

xsd:decimal a rdfs:Class .
xsd:integer rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal .
xsd:nonPositiveInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer .
xsd:long rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer .
xsd:nonNegativeInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer .
xsd:negativeInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonPositiveInteger .
xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:long .
xsd:unsignedLong rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonNegativeInteger .
xsd:positiveInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonNegativeInteger .
xsd:short rdfs:subClassOf xsd:int .
xsd:unsignedInt rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedLong .
xsd:byte rdfs:subClassOf xsd:short .
xsd:unsignedShort rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedInt .
xsd:unsignedByte rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedShort .

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:50:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT