- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:02:54 +0200
- To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-15 14:38, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:
> At 09:45 AM 1/15/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> I'll also argue that (a) is semantically equivalent to (b) in the
> sense
>>> that if an RDF graph and any associated schema graphs are merged,
> the
>>> result can be interpreted per (a).
>>
>> This I don't fully agree with. The typing knowledge defined in the
>> schema may have multiple possible interpretations.
>>
>> The semantics of the rdfs:range 'constraint' (as I see it) is to
>> define an implicit union of data types, the members being the objects
>> of the rdfs:range, which may be used to
>
> "intersection", not "union" (per WG resolution).
??? I understood that 'union' meant the intersection of
lexical and value spaces.
What's the difference?
>
> I see nothing here that argues that the meaning of:
>
> Direct Graph + Schema Graph
>
> should be any different to the meaning of the merge of those graphs.
> I.e.
> the same conclusions can be drawn either way.
Right. OK. I understood your "merge" to mean asserting the
global knowledge defined in the schema in a local manner.
I.e. taking all P idioms and expressing them as D.
It looks like we agree.
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 10:02:07 UTC