Re: RDF-ISSUE-90 (LV-entailment): Define a simple form of “literal value entailment” [RDF Semantics]

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