- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:39:45 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Friday's telecon reminded me that I had left test case A in for a reason. There was more I had to say about it, and writing that message the following occurred to me. Test case A says: <s1> <p> "lit" . <s2> <p> "lit" . can we conclude that value of both properties are the same. Consider _:b1 rdf:type rdf:Seq . _:b1 rdf:_1 "10" . _:b2 rdf:type rdf:Seq . _:b2 rdf:_1 "10" . This would require that the first member of each sequence is the same. Given that we also have a common superproperty of the rdf:_xxx properties, this essentially means that all literals which are members of any container must all have the same dataype, i.e. all literals in containers must be tidy. I suggest this is incompatible with the untidy literals and a yes to test case A above. The approach to untidiness suggested at the face to face was a compromise. I think this example demonstrates that compromise does not work and we have to choose between tidiness or a stronger notion of untidyness. Brian
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 07:40:45 UTC