- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:33:09 +0200
- To: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > I'd suggest the following levels, or distinctions, which correspond > roughly to yours. > > 1. Local intra-type information: for each datatype d, all true > equations of the form > Lit-1^^d = Lit-2^^d > > 2. Local inter-type information: As 1, but in addition all true > equations of the form > Lit-1^^d1 = Lit-2^^d2 for d1, d2 in the set of datatypes > > 3. Global inter-type information: As 2., but in addition all subset > relationships between value spaces of distinct datatypes in the set. Hmmm... OK, but this misses one key element, that of whether a given application has knowledge sufficient for #2 and #3 for all datatypes for which it provides #1. I.e. the set of datatypes for which it can provide #3 may be a subset of those for which it can provide #2 which may be a subset of those for which it can provide #1. Thus, what the three "levels" above are really defining are three sets of datatype classes. Of course, the level of support provided can be explicitly captured by having system-specific assertions, using either classes or collection property values. But it's important that the level of support required by an entailment test be clear. > In addition, any of these can also supply RDF properties and > undertake to provide extensions for those properties in the form of > truthvalues for (some or all) triples of the form > > Lit-1^^d1 <property> Lit-2^^d2 Right. I would define the three levels of support in this way, noting simply that the operations provided are defined by the datatypes in question, but that at the very least, equality is required. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:34:03 UTC