> To me, using "^^" makes it clear that ^^ is a syntactic thing > whose semantics are in fact equivalent to "^" except that > the formal triples representation is different. > > So Jos, you can if you want dismantle the triple into two. > You will have a semantically equivalent graph. > Not the one which others want to be the canonical graph, > but one can define a Jos-canonical one. > They would entail each other. using Pat's old trick {?d a rdfd:Datatype} log:implies {?d rdfs:domain ?d}. we could indeed have that :Jenny :age "10"^^xsd:integer. entails :Jenny :age [ xsd:integer "10" ]. and indeed both objects denote the number 10 it's just that RDFCore agreed to write the former > I feel that "^^", being syntactic, should only be usable with a > fixed set of type URIs. that's indeed better -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 19:31:55 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:36 EDT