W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:42:36 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020712163437.063415a0@15.144.25.13>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

At 09:35 12/07/2002 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Brian McBride wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Because the A tests have no range constraint.  We either have to decide
> > that literals are self denoting - they always denote themselves in which
> > case the answer to D must be NO, or there denotation depends on a range
> > constraint in which case the answer to A must be NO.
>
>I don't follow. Assuming literals always denote themselves (which is the
>"duh!" test I was refering to), why MUST D be NO?

Because a string and an integer are never equal.


>That is to say, a _literal_ is defined as something _without_ an rdfs:range,
>and a _value_ is something _with_ an rdfs:range, so why can't each have
>their own "eq" rules?

I agree with you here that

   integerValueOf("10") = 10

but that doesn't make "10" = 10.

[...]

>Perhaps I am being dense so help me, suppose I have a set of triples
>_without_ an rdfs:range and I say "not equal" and then I add a triple with
>an rdfs:range, and then I say "equal" how isn't that non-monotonic? Aren't
>_both_ "equal" and "not equal" inferences in this specific case?

Concluding "not equal" is not the same thing as not concluding "equal".  It 
is possible to not know enough to conclude one way or the other.  But I 
should leave this conversation the logicians.

Brian
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 11:46:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT