W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:35:38 -0400
Message-ID: <007301c229a9$025ee320$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

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?

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?

> >one could have two different types of equality -- string eq and value
> Yes.  We are talking about value-eq here.
> [...]
> >note that "value-equal" might be non-monotonic if the <rdfs:range>
> >got detatched from the other triples
> that would not be non-monotonic - if you remove a triple then of course
> are free to remove some inferences that depend on it.  My understanding of
> non monotonicity is that you must never withdraw an inference because of
> adding new triples.

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?

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 09:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC