- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:51:21 +0200
- To: connolly@w3.org, Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > Sent: 06 December, 2001 11:51 > To: Graham Klyne > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: PL: how a perl programmer might do datatypes in RDF > > > Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > Nicely presented :-) > > > > This looks like an approach I could live with. > > > > I think the issue of "10" vs "010" needs to be clear -- you > seem to be > > proposing that these ares distinct scalar values. > > yes; they are distinguishable in all interpretations. > > > But under what > > conditions does: > > > > X foo "10" . > > > > entail > > > > X foo "010" . > > > > ? > > it never RDF-entials nor RDFs-entials. > > However, in stuff layered on top of RDF/RDFS, > if you added more axioms about foo... say, that > ?x foo ?a > ?a sameNumber ?b > implies > ?x foo ?b > then you would get that conclusion. But your 'sameNumber' property should be handled by the built in RDF mechanisms for typing. I.e., you would say X foo "10". X foo "010". foo rdfs:range some:type. or X foo [ rdf:value "10"; rdf:type some:type ]. X foo [ rdf:value "010"; rdf:type some:type ]. and if both lexical forms "10" and "010" both map to the same value in the value space of some:type, they are the same. The lexical forms should not be the basis for equality, if you are really talking about equality of values. Patrick
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 17:51:30 UTC