- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:22:57 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > I don't think rule 4 is valid. That is, Im not sure quite what > ?l rdf:type rdfs:Literal . > is intended to convey, but if its supposed to say that the object of > the previous triple is a literal, then the rule is not valid. Here's > a counterexample: > > Suppose IEXT(I(<ex:PPP>)) is the identity map. Then for example I > satisfies > > _:x <ex:PPP> "10" . > <ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> . > > (map _:x to "10"; all literal strings are in the universe; "10" is in > the lexical space of the datatype) but not > > _:x <ex:PPP> "10" . > <ex:PPP> rdfd:datatype <xsd:integer> . > _:x <ex:PPP> _:y . > _:y rdfd:lex "10" . > > since this requires _:y to denote an integer, and so requires 10 to > equal "10" in that datatyped interpretation. > > I agree with Pat. (I mean this in the sense of: - I did not see the contradiction - I imagine others did not either - now that Pat spells it out, it looks to me as if he is reasoning correctly - I think others may be interested in my confirming opinion as to the correctness of Pat's reasoning. i.e. no axes being ground here). Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 06:23:28 UTC