Re: Denotation of datatype values

On 2002-04-13 2:19, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:

> 
> [...]
> 
>> Note: I've opted in this revision for rdfd:datatype rather than
>> rdfd:range as the latter seems to be causing folks indigestion and I
>> must admit that when taking the view that it is the datatype semantics
>> which impose the constraints on the idioms (by providing valid
>> interpretations of them), all rdfd:datatype is doing
>> is associating a datatype context with a property, and thus
>> is not really itself defining any kind of range.
> 
> we've updated http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfd-rules.n3
> accordingly as well as etc http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p8e.n3
> as you may see we have rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a and 5b
> but there may seem something strange with 5a and 5b
> the intent is to represent bNodes at the THEN side

Well, as I'm presently thinking 5a and 5b should be deleted,
I'm not worried... ;-)

> anyhow, it seems to work (at least for that test case)

Cool.

Cheers,

Patrick
 
> have a very nice weekend!
> 
> --
> Jos
> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Saturday, 13 April 2002 00:48:45 UTC