RE: The X Datatype Proposal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 17 November, 2001 01:20
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The X Datatype Proposal
> 
> 
> (Sorry this reply is delayed, I put off the long msgs until the 
> shorter ones were dealt with. Hah!
> -Pat)
> .....
> >
> >>  >prescriptive range
> >>  >
> >>  >         A range constraint for a particular predicate
> >>  defining a global
> >>  >         type which all local types for all values must be
> >>  equivalent to
> >>  >         (either identical to, or a subclass of, the defined
> >>  range class)
> >>
> >>  I see no difference here between prescriptive and descriptive. The
> >>  former seems to be the same as the latter with the provisio added
> >>  that everything must be consistent; but that is a vacuous 
> condition
> >>  in an assertional language.
> >
> >There is a *huge* difference. It's as significant as the difference
> >between XML well formedness and XML validity.
> 
> I assume that we have now thrashed this point to death, right?

And then some (but the damn thing keeps coming back to life! ;-)

> As I understand it, this distinction has no meaning in RDFS itself, 
> though it may have for some systems that propose to use RDFS 
> information to do type-checking.
> ....

I agree. Case closed.

> (Or are your graphs not RDF graphs at all? But then why are we even 
> discussing them in this WG?)

They are and they aren't. They are not graphs per the current RDF
graph model. They are RDF graphs in that they represent RDF knowledge.
That knowledge could be represented by either graph.

One may also argue, is the "graph" employed by the MT an RDF graph
if it employs mechanisms which are not defined in the current graph
model?

But let's rather actually not have that discussion here, eh? Feel
free to respond offgroup if you like, though.

> >The example implementations for Java and Relation Tables should
> >make this quite clear.
> 
> Unfortunately not. It remains completely opaque to me.

I'm sure that is due to my inability to express myself in a manner
and language that you are familar with. Cest la vie.
 
Patrick

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 05:49:06 UTC