- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:07:34 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >General comment, not specifically Primer: the description of >rdf:value is fine, but how does it relate to a normative >specification? What can we say formally about rdf:value? Right now, we say explicitly that it has no particular meaning. >What formal semantics (interpretation) allows us to make inferences like: > > my:cat rdf:type ex:DomesticCat . > my:cat ex:weight _:x . > _:x rdf:value "15" . > _:x ex:unit ex:Kilogram > >=> > > my:cat rdf:type ex:Obese . Nothing in the MT provides any connection in meaning between the third and fourth triple of the first graph. I was under the impression that we had formally decided NOT to support this kind of usage. Wasn't that part of the local-datatyping no-fancy-idioms decision? >but NOT: > > my:cat rdf:type ex:DomesticCat . > my:cat ex:weight _:x . > _:x rdf:value "15" . > _:x ex:unit ex:Pound > >=> > > my:cat rdf:type ex:Obese . > >? > >My point here is if we are to encourage such usage of rdf:value, >then there ought to be some normative description to back up such >usage. I agree. Either we should not mention this stuff, or else we should back it up with some semantics. It wouldn't be hard to do and it would also enable us to do some neat datatyping entailments that people seem to think are obvious, such as (with appropriate wellformedness caveats) aaa ppp "sss"^^ddd . --> aaa ppp _:x . _:x rdf:value "sss" . _:x rdf:type ddd . Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 10:58:52 UTC