Re: incorporating datatypes into the MT

[...]

> What built in stuff specifically?  As I understand it, the idea is that
> datatyping is built in.  So for example,
>
>    <a> <b> "foo"^^someDatatype .
>    <c> <d> "foo"^^someDatatype .
>
> entails
>
>    <a> <b> _:v .
>    <c> <d> _:v .
>
> This must be true for all datatypes, I believe.

I believe that too

> On the other hand, for some reason I haven't figured out, the WG were
keen
> that:
>
>    <a> <b> "foo"^^dt1 .
>    <c> <d> "bar"^^dt2 .
> entails
>    <a> <b> _:v .
>    <c> <d> _:v .
>
> whenever dt1.value("foo") = dt2.value("bar")
>
> should be in a separate category of datatype entailments.  Specific
> entailments in this category depend on specific knowledge of that actual
> datatypes, e.g.
>
>    <a> <b> "10"^^xsd:integer .
>    <c> <d> "010"^^xsd:integer .

right, maybe to extend Pat's namespace entailment idea,
one could for instance say "XSD entails"
(actually give all the namespaces in the premise)


> >So my question is, will incorporating datatyping into the basic RDF MT
> >cause anyone grief? In particular, will it break the proposed API
designs
> >apparently being developed? Because if so, we have some hard thinking to

> >do. I really don't see how I can make sense of typed literals without
> >talking about datatypes and datatype mappings.
>
>
> Just so.
>
> Does any WG member disagree with the characterization above?

I agree with with your characterization

>   Pat: is that
> enough guidance for you?

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