- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:00:20 -0500
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <B2540380-46EC-4B21-83CF-B17AA4615BEE@ihmc.us>
On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > 3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format > other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by > writing things like > > "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "01022010"^^xsd:date . > "01-02-1481" isDateIn :MuslimCalendar . > > > This is a great example of what is wrong with the proposal! :) > > Either, the literals stand by themselves and each occurrence of > "01-02-1481" is a completely separate instance (and in the current > syntax would get a unique identifier), or *all* occurrences of the > literal can be conflated together. The distinction between a token > and a type, respectively. The current RDF model clearly mandates that we understand these as types rather than tokens, just like URIs . So I will only respond to that alternative. > > Option 2: Literal as Type > However, if all occurrences of that string are the same entity and > can be merged together, then we also have: > > "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "1481-02-01"^^xsd:date . // ddmmyyyy > "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "1481-01-02"^^xsd:date . // mmddyyyy > "01-02-1481" isDateIn :RomanCalendar > > This also makes the proposal pointless as you cannot say anything > meaningful which is globally true about a literal. That same string > is at least three different dates in two different calendars. Drat > that pesky global truth requirement! So, what is the problem? That one string is, indeed, three different dates in three different calendars. The string "chat" is one word in French, a different word in English. But it is the same string in both cases; and the literal denotes the string. > > The only way that Pat's example makes sense is if the context of the > literal is constrained to the current named graph. If there was > interest in "fixing" RDF, then making Named Graphs a core feature > would be my first agenda item! Well, I agree about the conclusion, but not for this reason. Pat > > Rob Sanderson > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 19:01:38 UTC