Re: Yet another approach to literals (take 2)

With reference to:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/0160.html

I don't think my proposed handling of ILOBJ and DT-interpretation 
adequately reflects the use of multiple typing in RDF.

Example goal:  if a property has binaryInteger and decimalInteger as its 
range (with the usual datatype mappings), then the only literals that can 
be used with that property are "0" and "1".

Thus, I would propose redefining 2a:
[[[
2a. Define a mapping ILOBJ from IP to the powerset of DT.  Informally, this 
indicates DT values that must all be satisfied when interpreting literal 
values used in the object position of the corresponding property.
]]]

The definition of interpretation of a literal then becomes:
[[[
4. The interpretation of a statement of the form  aaa bbb "foo" .
is defined thus:
    If there exists v in IR such that:
      forall d in ILOBJ(I(bbb)), <"foo",v> in DTEXT(d) , AND
      <i(aaa),v> in IEXT(I(bbb)) THEN True, otherwise False.
]]]

And the additional DT-interpretation condition:
[[[
   <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range)) and y in DT then y in ILOBJ(x).
]]]

Thus, to be a valid DT-interpretation, all the the members of DT that are 
in the range of property x must be satisfied by any interpretion of 
literals as objects of x.

#g


--------------------------
        __
       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/