- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:34:25 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Siarhei Uladzimiravich Kuryla <s.kuryla@jacobs-university.de>
On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> >> On Jul 6, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> Steve Harris wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> p a rdf:Property ; >>>>>>>> rdfs:domain rdfs:Literal ; >>>>>>>> rdfs:range rdfs:Datatype . >>>>> >>>>> _:x p xsd:date . >>>>> _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01" . >>>> >>>> did you mean: >>>> >>>> _:x p xsd:date . >>>> _:x owl:sameAs "2008-01-01"^^xsd:date . >>>> >>>> otherwise you get some odd conclusions. >>>> >>>> - Steve >>> >>> I don't see any odd conclusions ... we have not said anything >>> about the >>> realtionship between the subject and object of a p triple, other >>> than the >>> usual they are related by the p-property. >>> >> >> Right. BTW, you could now say that the domain of p was >> rdf:PlainLiteral :-) >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ > > Yes, except isn't that exactly wrong? At least by the desired sense > noted in the topic of the mail message "literal has datatype D". > > A plain literal had datatype http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ > which isn't any datatype other than itself. It certainly isn't and > xsd:date. > > Is what's trying to be said that a certain string should be > interpreted as a certain datatype? But if that's the case, why not > just write it "certain string"^^datatype? (if it is malformed, you > will get an inconsistency, which is good!) > > Sorry if I'm being dense. No, but I was probably making a mistake trying to be humorous about rdf:PlainLIteral, sorry. Would it be wrong? It depends on exactly what we are talking about here. If the subject of :p is intended to be the datatyped literal, then right, it would be wrong to say it was a plain literal. But if the subject is supposed to be the character string of the literal, then this might be one way to say that. Though even then, it would, I agree, be potentially misleading. The best way, if you can't put the literal in subject position, would be what Steve suggested above. Pat > > -Alan > > > > >> >> Pat >> >> >>> Jeremy >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Monday, 6 July 2009 22:35:56 UTC