- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:37:40 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 05:53 PM 10/23/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Approach 1: concrete types are represented by literals which are a pair >consisting of a type and a lexical representation, the result of a dumb >merge is: > >_:foobar rdf:type util:Foobar . >_:foobar util:size xsd:int-"10" . >_:foobar util:size xsd:int-"010" . > >Unless the software is smart enough to understand that "05" and "5" denote >the same integer, this is pretty unsatisfactory, since there really is >only one size property. I'm not sure that I agree that the number of size properties here matters. The interpretation of a graph as True or False in some interpretation seems to be the key, and if the datatyping tells us that "10" and "010" are representations of the same integer value, then _:foobar util:size xsd:int-"10" . entails _:foobar util:size xsd:int-"010" . and vice versa, so the truth of the graph in any interpretation is not affected. (Or should I say: the truth of the graph in any interpretation with the "expected" datatyping properties is not affected.) >Conclusion: require a canonical representation of integers, or sw has to >understnad how to process the the xsd:int type. So what meaning is to be applied to the well-formed RDF that does not use a canonical form for its data type? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:08:49 UTC