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

RE: I18N Issue alternative: a passing thought.

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:26:23 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030918171630.00b770a8@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 09:06 18/09/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 08:17, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>[...]
> > The additional blank node was at the heart of the untidy proposals (either
> > explicitly or implicitly) and this proposal is essentially untidiness
> > revisited.
>
>Is it really? After a quick read, I also came to the
>conclusion that consideration of this proposal involves
>reopening the datatypes issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
>
>but just to confirm, Pat, in your proposal, does this
>entailment hold or not?
>
>    <a> <b> "10" .
>    <c> <d> "10" .
>
>entails
>
>    <a> <b> _:l .
>    <c> <d> _:l .

If I understand correctly, that entailment does hold, but it's not quite 
the same as:

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="a">
       <b>10</b>
    </rdf:Description>
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="c">
       <d>10</d>
    </rdf:Description>

entails:

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="a">
       <b rdf:nodeId="l" />
    </rdf:Description>
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="c">
       <d rdf:nodeId="l" />
    </rdf:Description>

which, I think, also holds.  The latter would resolve to:

   <a> <b> _:n1 .
   _:n1 xsd:string "10" .
   <a> <b> _:n2 .
   _:n2 xsd:string "10" .

entails:

   <a> <b> _:n1 .
   _:n1 xsd:string _:l .
   <a> <b> _:n2 .
   _:n2 xsd:string _:l .

in which the triples:

   _:n1 xsd:string _:l .
   _:n2 xsd:string _:l .

would be entailed by

   _:n1 xsd:string "10" .
   _:n2 xsd:string "10" .

as above, hence the result by subgraph entailment.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 10:27:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 19 September 2003 10:27:44 EDT