- 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