- 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