- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:32:32 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > 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, > > But only if you really mean that each literal above > is a separate, unique node and that node has context > within a specific statement. I.e. > > _1:"10" rdf:type xsd:decimal. > _2:"10" rdf:type xsd:string. > _3:"10" rdf:type xsd:float. > _4:"10" rdf:type xsd:double. > _5:"10" rdf:type xsd:gYear. > _6:"10" rdf:type xsd:gMonth. > _7:"10" rdf:type xsd:gDay. > _8:"10" rdf:type xsd:hexBinary. I wrote (but you cutted that) ...are making sense, also taken *together* and their subjects are different nodes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and I don't think one needs extra node labeling (because one can talk about such *nodes*, be it in the EC subset of Notation3) > I.e. it is the node, not the literal, that is > the subject of the above statements. sure, the subject is a node written "10" > > "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 ]. > > Do you rather mean > > eg:me eg:shoeSize [ rdf:value "10", rdf:type xsd:decimal ]. as Pat argued, it would be better to write that as eg:me eg:shoeSize [ = "10", rdf:type xsd:decimal ]. > or > > eg:me eg:shoeSize _1:"10" . > _1:"10" rdf:type xsd:decimal . no, I meant what I wrote eg:me eg:shoeSize "10", [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ]. or eg:me eg:shoeSize "10". eg:me eg:shoeSize [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ]. which would require the assertion eg:shoeSize rdf:type daml:UniqueProperty. to conclude that both object nodes "10" and [ rdf:type xsd:decimal ] are the same thing (but again you cutted that piece of text) > > 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 > > If you mean that rdfs:subClassOf relations between data types > defines a relation between lexical spaces, then I disagree. not lexical of course not -- Jos
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 09:34:10 UTC