- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:04:24 -0000
- To: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Further clarification ... > So, in effect, the denotation of *any* node is a pair (in any model of an > RDF graph)? Nodes labelled with URIs map to resources Nodes labelled with strings map to pairs Blank nodes can map to either resources or pairs. > > Ah, I think I get it. In any model (which in your MT is defined relative > to some set of datatypes as well as the URI vocabulary), the > interpretation > can be _any_ pair of <literal,value> that is a member of some datatype > mapping. rdf:type and schema statements may have the effect of > eliminating > some potential candidates from the set of models? Almost correct. The doc allows _any_ pair (whatsoever). There is no requirement that there are any datatypes (an earlier draft, which I think you looked at, used xsd:string as a default, that's been dropped, I had made a mistake), so there is no requirement that the pair belongs to a datatype. All pairs which are the interpretation of Unicode string nodes are required to have the string literal being the same as the node label. The key part is your last sentence quoted: "rdf:type and schema statements may have the effect of eliminating some potential candidates" . Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 09:12:28 UTC