- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:40:23 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 05:11 PM 10/8/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >If I follow you here, the literal itself would be rather like a pair of a >URI and a special kind of property whose value is the class of literal >values that this URI might have. But what determines the actual literal >value? Eg suppose I write > >aaa foo <bbb, [http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes, integer]> . > >then the interpretation I(bbb) isn't itself an integer, right(? Or is it? >If so, what ensures that it is?) >IDT([http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes, integer]) is the set of >integers, OK. But what is the thing that is the value of the property >IEXT(I(foo)) on I(aaa)? Just a wild half-baked thought, which maybe should be ignored... Suppose I(bbb) is not an integer; maybe then the interpretation of <bbb, [http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes, integer]> is some concept like "bottom" (this being the case whenever I(bbb) is not in IDT([x,y]) for any literal <bbb, [x,y]>), and "bottom" being defined as something that can never appear in a property extension pair. The effect, I think, is that any graph with a literal "type violation" just evaluates to false. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 10:44:36 UTC