- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:36:58 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
Yes, quite. Thank you for your pithy summary.
> 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.
My response is that I agree and have rewritten the relevant condition to include this. New draft will be uploaded tonight or tomorrow.
Pat
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sunday, 16 June 2013 01:37:30 UTC