- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:21:17 +0000
- To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Hi, I introduced, as for the other datatypes (along with an editors note), -equals and -not-equals predicates for the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype. There is an obvious overlap between the -equals predicates and '=', i.e. the '=' built-ins are superfluous, it seems, for dialects that support equality. That is not the case for the not-equals predicates, though: All the -not-equals predicates, i.e. pred:numeric-not-equal, pred:string-not-equal, pred:dateTime-not-equal, pred:date-not-equal, pred:time-not-equal, pred:duration-not-equal, pred:XMLLiteral-not-equal, pred:text-not-equal are defined on the same domains as their positive counterpart with reversed truth-values. That has the consequence though, that they are not possibly emulated by negation as failure, i.e. it is in general not true to say that the -not-equals version is true, whenever the -equals version is NOT true. An example: _a:- External (pred:numberic-equals("blabla", 1) ) _b:- External (pred:numberic-not-equals("blabla", 1) ) entails neither _a nor _b, however _a:- "blabla" = 1 _b:- naf ( "blabla" = 1 ) would entail _b. So, 2 questions: 1) Do we want this behavior or do we want the negation as failure behavior of inequality? 2) Do we want the redundancy of equals predicates? I think we need these things clarified, to be able to determine how '=' and "!=" shortcuts in an abridged syntax should be defined. Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:22:05 UTC