- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:13:43 +0300
- To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-04-19 11:05, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > and now I would think we have > > ////// > rdfd:Datatype a rdfs:Class; rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . > rdfd:dcrange a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdf:Property; rdfs:range > rdfd:Datatype. > rdfd:lex a rdf:Property; rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource; rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . > > { ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:domain ?d } . Fine up to here. > { ?d a rdfd:Datatype . ?o ?d ?l } log:implies { ?o rdfd:lex ?l } . Well, yes. But I think this is better captured by { ?d a rdfd:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfd:lex } . > { ?p rdfd:dcrange ?d . ?o rdfd:lex ?l . ?s ?p ?o } log:implies { ?o ?d ?l } . Fine, insofar as this is expressing the equivalence of the lexical form and datatype property idioms. I would also add: { ?p rdfd:datatype ?d . ?s ?p ?l . ?l rdf:type rdfs:Literal } log:implies { ?s ?p ?o. ?o ?d ?l } . Note that this latter entailment is *not* changing the meaning of the literal ?l. Rather, it is making explicit the value that is identified by the combination of the inline idiom and the rdfd:datatype assertion. Now, I still have a problem with the closure rules saying "add the following to the graph". Rather, an application can take the 'then' portion of the closure rules as being "understood" as part of the datatyping interpretation, without having to actually assert those implied statements in the graph. I'd like to change the table headings of the closure rules to "If the graph contains" and "then one may infer" and not actually say that statements should be added to the graph explicitly. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 07:10:52 UTC