- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 04:11:44 +0000
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 01:06 AM 12/13/01 +0200, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >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. The statements above, as given, don't express the idea that "10" is a member of the lexical domain of xsd:integer. Hence... >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. There's no extension to the semantics of rdfs:domain. The "special treatment" of datatypes is that the datatype-defining URIs have fixed interpretations. In the your example, having the definition of s:integer fixed so that its relational extension contains pairs of the form: <1,"1"> <2,"2"> etc. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> __ /\ \ / \ \ / /\ \ \ / / /\ \ \ / / /__\_\ \ / / /________\ \/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 23:49:19 UTC