W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > July 2003

RE: unsupported datatypes

From: Gary Ng <Gary.Ng@networkinference.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:26:07 +0100
Message-ID: <3BE4D3F0FB726240966DEF40418472B53E9502@ni-lon-server1.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Horrocks
> Sent: 15 July 2003 18:02
> To: Gary Ng
> Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: unsupported datatypes
> On July 15, Gary Ng writes:
> >
> >
> > Another question, this time about unsupported datatypes.
> >
> > In the reference doc, it says:
> >
> > "For unsupported datatypes, lexically identical literals should be
> > considered equal, whereas lexically different literals would not be
> > known to be either equal or unequal. Unrecognized datatypes should
> > treated in the same way as unsupported datatypes."
> >
> > The first half of the sentence would suggest to treat a literal of
> > unknown type as just a string. However, I am not entirely sure what
> > expected from a reasoner with respect to the behaviour of "would not
> > known to be either equal or unequal".
> Unknown or unrecognised datatypes are treated as being the lexical
> form (a string) of some unknown datatype. It is obviously the case
> that, whatever the datatype, identical lexical forms map to the same
> element of the value space, and can thus be considered equal. For
> non-identical lexical forms, however, it *cannot* be assumed that they
> do not map to the same element of the value space and are thus
> unequal.
> E.g., the lexical forms "1.0" and "01.00" would map to the same value
> (and thus be considered equal) in some datatypes (e.g., decimal), but
> not in others (e.g., string).
Yes, I got that. 

But from a practical point of view of handling values from an
unsupported datatype within a reasoning tool, this sounds like I can't
even implement them as strings because since two different strings would
be considered unequal. So the question is, how should I implement them? 

Consider the following:

<Measurement rdf:ID="a_measurement">

<Measurement rdf:ID="b_measurement">

by the definition, "XYZ" and "ABC" are neither equal nor unequal.
So what should be the answer to the following question? 

Retrieve all instances of (complementOf(exists hasAValueOf XYZ))

Because we cannot *prove* that XYZ = or != to ABC, thus 
The answer would be empty. Am I correct?

If I am correct, then this behaviour is the same as if XYZ and ABC are
classes/instances. So really we can't implement values from unsupported
datatypes as strings.


Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:26:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:34 UTC