Re: Typed literals: current status

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 22 October, 2002 18:18
Subject: Re: Typed literals: current status


> 
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 01:14, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Patrick:
> > > Are we making it clear somewhere that 'datatype' (unless
> > > otherwise specified) refers to an instance of rdfs:Datatype?
> 
> In fact, the answer I got about rdf:datatype specifics suggested
> to me that we're not using datatype URIs as names at all;
> the design doesn't seem to have anything to do with what those
> URIs denote.

Eh? In what way. All the usage I've seen for a good long time
certainly uses those URIs as the names of the datatypes, denoting
the datatypes.

Can you elaborate, please.

> "unless otherwise specified"??? that's non-monotonic.

No. I meant as specified in the documentation, not in the RDF.  That
when one encounters the English word "datatype" in the specs, it is
clear whether it means rdfs:Datatype, XML Schema datatype, or some
other kind of datatype.

> > this looks to me like a model theoretic closure rule, possibly at the RDFS
> > level (before any specific datatypes are assumed)
> > 
> > i.e.
> > 
> > aaa ppp <datatype>lll .
> > 
> > rdfs-entails
> > 
> > <datatype> rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> > 
> > 
> > Comments, (Pat?)
> 
> Gads, I hope not! Up to now, RDFS closures have not
> involved deconstructing literals. I hope we
> don't start now!

Well, the structure of typed literals is visible to the MT, so
I don't see how this is a problem.

Patrick

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 01:06:47 UTC