- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:23:39 +0000
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu
At 02:28 PM 2/1/02 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>GrahamK wrote:
> > I agree with your conclusion about the rdf:value+rdf:type idiom.
> >
> > I've been mulling a similar problem with some of my ideas, and I'm not sure
> > I'm convinced by the need to introduce anything new (rdf:dtype, or
> whatever).
> >
> > Where there are multiple type constraints, why not simply require that they
> > *all* be satisfied, per conjunctive type semantics. If the various applied
> > types cannot be simultaneously satisfied in this way then we simply have an
> > unsatisfiable graph. Tough.
>
>well Graham, I think union is needed i.e. Pat's
>[[
> BTW, the easiest way to understand rdf:value here would be that it is
> a union (disjunction) of inverses of canonical submappings of the
> datatype mappings in D, ie IEXT(I(rdf:value)) = {<x,y> : for some
> datatype d in D, LV(d)(y)=x} .
>]]
I've yet to be convinced that union is needed. I took Pat's proposal to
mean that the rdf:type/rdf:value combination was treated as a distinct
syntactic entity and as such I'm not concerned by the lack of an
interpretation for rdf:value in isolation.
>we experimented with rdfd-theory.n3 i.e.
[...]
>and found no trouble (so far)
Sure. I've no reason to believe it doesn't work... I just remain to be
convinced that the extra typing property is needed.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 09:24:19 UTC