- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:56:13 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-20 11:13, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> >wrote: > >> Oh dear, it's looking as if I seriously dropped the ball on this... >> >> With my CC/PP hat on I don't see the following "long-range" usage is >> supported: >> >> _:SomeClientComponent client-property:dpi "100" . >> >> : >> >> client-property:dpi rdfs:range datatype:number . >> >> i.e. does not define support for idiom B in the datatyping desiderata >> document: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0133/00-gk.htm >> >> What also now seriously bothers me is that I can't see how the full >> proposal [1] supports this either. I had earlier convinced myself that >> this was all OK, but now I can't see it. Aaargh! > >It was specifically to provide this support that I suggested >the union interpretation of rdfs:drange, so that it would >provide a consistent interpretation for both the S-B idiom >and the bNode idioms. I don't think that the union idea works mathematically, is the problem. But I think we can get the same utility (and the same behavior on the examples) without using the union construction as such, though based I think on the same intuition. And Im beginning to see that it is very useful to have an explicit name for the lexical class, to be sure. Let me get back to y'all on this later in the day. >Folks can still use the S-B idiom *without* any defined >range constraints to interpret all such inlined literals as just >literals. If you have long range datatyping, you are doing >datatyping. Tough. Well, OK, as long as you are prepared to accept that this is a non-monotonic construction. That is going to stick in many craws, however. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 14:47:00 UTC