- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:06:23 +0200
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
OK, I alluded to a question that I've asked several times about a characteristic of the S approach for which I feel I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. I did get one very short comment from Pat, which merely emphasized my point (and concern). Here is the question again with examples: The S examples include statements such as the following: Bob ex:age _:1 . _:1 s:integer "10" . s:integer rdfs:domain xsd:integer . I understand this to mean that the node '_:1' denotes a value of type xsd:integer and there is a mapping to that value from the lexical form "10" which is presumed to be a member of the lexical space of xsd:integer. However, this is extending the semantics of rdfs:domain in a way that only apples to data type properties by saying something about the object of the statement rather than the class of the subject -- i.e. that "10" is a member of the lexical space of xsd:integer. Furthermore, what if we use rdfs:subPropertyOf as follows: Bob ex:age "10" . ex:age rdfs:subPropertyOf s:integer . s:integer rdfs:domain xsd:integer . Now things get messy. This basically asserts that Bob denotes a value in the value space of xsd:integer, which is not (I would presume) what is intended. In this case, it is the literal labled node that denotes both the value and lexical form. Thus, the interpretation/semantics of the S data typing property and use of rdfs:domain seems to depend on whether the subject is a bNode or not. I am concerned about these (apparent) inconsistency. It also seems to indicate that data typing properties are some other kind of property than current RDF properties for which the currently defined semantics of rdfs:domain, rdfs:subPropertyOf, etc. is insufficient and that we would need to modify/extend/constrain the semantics of these mechanisms to address these new data typing properties. I would appreciate folk's comments regarding the above, and apologize if I have not communicated my questions and concerns clearly enough. Thanks, Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 18:06:30 UTC