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

RE: Datatyping, reification, syntactic tidyness

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:14:12 +0200
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEBICAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


>
>
> >And I buy Guha's point at the Bristol F2F that with untidy
> literal semantics
> >rdf:object refers to the syntax of the triple not its semantics.
>
> That is reopening an old issue where I believe we have already
> decided the
> value of the reification properties do not denote the syntax.
>
> Are you suggesting this treatment be special for rdf:object?
> Just when it
> takes a literal value?

No, I think you have misunderstood. I am not reopening any issues.

In

<rdf:Description rdf:ID="subj" >
  <eg:p1 rdf:ID="statement">10</eg:p1>
  <eg:p2>10</eg:p2>
</rdf:Description>

There are three triples with "10" as object:

<#subj> <eg:p1> "10" .
<#subj> <eg:p2> "10" .
<#statement> <rdf:object> "10" .

My understanding of the model theory (any version) is that nothing special
links the interpretation of the "10" in the third triple to the
interpretation of the "10" in the first, which is not also true of the
second.

i.e. in a tidy model theory all three "10"'s are "10"; in an untidy model
theory all three "10"'s are unconstrained.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 08:14:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:58 EDT