- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 01:31:15 +0100
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee <timbl" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> 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 UTC