- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:25:24 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 14/08/2012 17:48, Pat Hayes a écrit : > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > >> One more clarification: I've integrated something that Pat >> suggested several times already, namely that the interpretation is >> independent of a vocabulary V. Otherwise, > > Might be safest to keep things conventional for now. So... > >> the definition can be rephrased as: >> >> """ Let D be a datatype map. We define an LV-interpretation(D) of a >> vocabulary V (or, LV-interpretation with respect to D of a >> vocabulary V) as a simple interpretation I of V which satisfies the >> following conditions: >> >> *LV semantic conditions.* - if<aaa,x> is in D then for any typed >> literal "sss"^^ddd in V with I(ddd) = x, * if sss is in the lexical >> space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) = L2V(x)(sss), * otherwise >> IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV """ > > Right, that seems to make sense. D-entailment without the RDFS part > built in. > > This means that ill-formed literals are equivalent only if they are > lexically identical, otherwise literals can be substituted for others > with the same value (even if they use a different datatype, at least > in principle. If the datatypes define values so that distinct type > value spaces are always disjoint, then this case doesn't arise, of > course.) Thanks, I did not think about that. So, for the record and to make things concrete, this means that: :s :p "2.0"^^xsd:decimal . is LV-equivalent to (assuming a typical XSD datatype map): :s :p "2"^^xsd:integer . I do not know if this was what Richard wanted to have when he raised the issue. -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 08:25:48 UTC