- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:45:58 +0100
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>Can I try to clarify what I think you're saying... >> >>Different occurrences of a literal within a graph may map to >>different values, but that these mappings are fixed, and may not >>change when a different interpretation is used for the graph. > >Right, that is what I had in mind. However, Peter wants a slightly >different notion, in which the interpretation *does* determine (or at >any rate *can* determine) the literal mappings. This seems to amount >to treating literals rather like bNodes with a kind of potential >datatype constraint on them (that can be inferred from rdfs:range >assertions in the graph, in Peter's scheme: see >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0057.html >). I have to say, I don't like this myself. But maybe I will have to >just shut up and go along with the crowd. we consider them as identities which can be unified in a very straightforward way (and actually also in subject and predicate roles) -- Jos
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 18:46:29 UTC