- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:11:29 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[...] > Part of the very idea of a literal (as opposed to a uriref) is that > its semantic value depends only on its form and the datatyping scheme > in use, and not on other aspects of the RDF interpretation. So if the > literal itself is 'bound' to a datatyping scheme, then the semantic > value of the literal is established. nice for the primer... > Now, the question arises, is > that semantic value a string or (say) a number? The various proposals > answer that question differently. indeed I think that following assertions "10" rdf:type xsd:decimal. "10" rdf:type xsd:string. "10" rdf:type xsd:float. "10" rdf:type xsd:double. "10" rdf:type xsd:gYear. "10" rdf:type xsd:gMonth. "10" rdf:type xsd:gDay. "10" rdf:type xsd:hexBinary. are making sense, also taken *together* and their subjects are different nodes and one could write something like "10" rdf:type xsd:decimal; is eg:shoeSize of eg:me. to say something about a *particular* node (because the ';' repeats that particular subject) or something like eg:me eg:shoeSize "10", [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ]. (but then we have to assume that eg:shoeSize is an ont:UniqueProperty) Another assumption is that http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-current-draft.html is not excluding literals in the rules for RDFS entailment e.g. rdfs3 xxx aaa uuu . aaa rdfs:range zzz . |- uuu rdf:type zzz . ^^^yyy ^^^yyy -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 07:12:01 UTC