- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:14:20 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Responses to simple questions only. > For one thing, it seems ugly. But that's a matter of taste, > not one I'd expect folks to find compelling. Not the way I would implement it either. > Another thing: when you say ?y != rdf:value do you mean > the syntactic term isn't rdf:value? Yes. > Or perhaps you're just proving that TDL is implementable, > and we shouldn't take the proof construction method too > seriously? Precisely. >Maybe something like this? > > ex:age rdfs:range dt:decimal. > ex:somebody ex:age "abc". > > ... where a datatypes implementation would be expected to complain > because that entails > "abc" rdf:type dt:decimal. > but we know that "abc" isn't a decimal literal. That's certainly one appropriate test. Also we may find some entailment tests. [ Query omitted from this response ] > > > Graham, does this adequately address your concern about self-entailment? > > It does address the self-entailment issue, I suppose. Thank you for your enthusiasm! > I don't understand that. I don't see any closed-world assumptions in S. [[[ 4.9 // idiom P Notice that for the above definition to be well-formed, we need to be able to enumerate all datatype mappings. ]]] That is a closed world assumption. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 11:14:23 UTC