- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:05:32 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Here is my reply on the datatypes portion of the thread. I have deliberately not included any of the previous discussion.
To have a datatype in 2004 you said:
I'm doing D-entailment where D = {<foo:bar>,A} and A is my datatype with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
Now you say
I'm doing D-entailment where D = {foo:bar} and foo:bar is my datatype with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
That's the entire change, modulo that for certain IRIs the datatype is fixed by the RDF spec and now doesn't even have to be mentioned.
peter
PS: Well, except that I think that the semantic conditions for D-intepretations have to be strengthened to say that an IRI in D has to denote the datatype that it identifies. I don't believe that I have seen a response on this point.
Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 18:06:03 UTC