W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Critical literal semantics issue

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:59:58 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160C73@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


It was my understanding (or misunderstanding) that the WG
had decided that the class extension of rdfs:Literal corresponded
to those things denoted by literal nodes in the graph. The
only odd man out being things (presumably) denoted by well
formed but semantically invalid typed literals.

I guess this needs clarification ASAP, and probably some
revision of the MT.

Pat? 

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 14 January, 2003 15:41
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Critical literal semantics issue
> 
> 
> 
> The LCC version of the RDF Semantics as referenced on the RDF 
> Core WG home
> page, at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/,
> *explicitly* does not make the class extension of rdfs:Literal have
> any relationship whatsoever to LV.  There is even an entire 
> section of the
> document on the non-relationship between 
> ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) and LV.
> 
> This decoupling of ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) and LV causes lots 
> of problems,
> as detailed in a message I sent to RDF comments
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanM
> ar/0014.html).
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies.
> 
> 
> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: Critical literal semantics issue
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:27:57 +0200
> 
> > > > All this means is that rdfs:Literal denotes a class, but it 
> > > says nothing
> > > > about the class extension of rdfs:Literal.  
> > > 
> > > The class extension of rdfs:Literal is understood to be a 
> subset of LV
> > > (see further comments below), i.e. all resources which are 
> > > denoted by a 
> > > plain (untyped) literal or a valid typed literal are in 
> LV and hence
> > > instances of rdfs:Literal.
> > 
> > Or rather, the class extension of rdfs:Literal *is* LV.
> > 
> > Patrick
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 03:00:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:20 EDT