Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

[...]
> It's quite accpetable to have a literal refered to only in
> using it, i.e. there is no conceivable situation that I can
> think of that would merit the anon node solution, other
> than to satisfy some theoretical bug.

:Sean :says (s:U0042 s:U0075 s:U0067 s:U0067 s:U0065 s:U0072) .

[[[
21:33:45 <sandro> I'm sorry, I don't quite follow.   Is there an object
somewhere which is the number 10, and another which is the numebr 16, and
how do you show how they relate to the string "10" and the two bases it
might be in?
21:34:59 <sbp> ah... I guess to show relations, they would need to be
modelled that way. Hmm...
21:36:23 <sbp> _:a rdf:value "10"; :base :Decimal . _:b rdf:value "10";
:value :Sixteen . "10" :lexRepresentationOf _:a , _:b .
21:36:46 <sbp> :lexRepresentationOf daml:inverseOf rdf:value .
21:38:04 <sbp> Aw, man...
21:38:40 <sbp> * sbp begins to hate RDF
21:40:28 <sandro> * sandro laughs
]]] - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-10-05.txt

Cheers,

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 17:50:56 UTC