- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:31:42 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sorry Pat I had skipped right over section 5 on my first speed-read :(, so I think probably misunderstood some of the intent. The picture in section 6.1.2 looks like RDF Model Theory without any datatyping. The picture in section 6.1.3 seems to have gone further than is licensed by section 5. In section 5, as I understand it, John and Judy get age 25 (the integer - assuming knowledge of the actual l2v mapping) whereas Jane has age "25" the string. My asserted non-monotonicity occurs when John, Judy and Jane all have the same age as in 6.1.3. Here's why. Consider: <John> <ex:age> _:x . _:x <xsd:integer> "25" . <Judy> <ex:age> _:y . _:y <rdfd:lex> "25" . <ex:age> <rdfd:range> <xsd:integer> . <Jane> <ex:age> "25" . <foo> <bar> "25" . <bar> <rdfd:range> <xsd:string> . In the model theoretic interpretation with no datatyping (and tidy literals) this entails: <Jane> <ex:age> _:a . <foo> <bar> _:a . but not <Jane> <ex:age> _:c . <John> <ex:age> _:c . In the datatyping interpretation (following the picture 6.1.3) this entails: <Jane> <ex:age> _:c . <John> <ex:age> _:c . but not <Jane> <ex:age> _:a . <foo> <bar> _:a . quod erat demonstrandum Jeremy Jeremy: > > > >Section 6.1.2 RDF Model Theory Interpretation > >http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/RDFDatatyping.html#ntoc_26 > > > >and > > > >Section 6.1.3 RDF Datatyping Interpretation > >http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/RDFDatatyping.html#ntoc_27 > > > >are different. >
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 14:32:57 UTC