- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:44:37 +0100 (BST)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > 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. > > > > My take is that global datatyping and containers of literals simply do not > interoperate. > Containers with literal values either are untyped or locally typed. > > I don't believe that any of the proposed global datatyping solutions (ever) work > with containers. > > Hence I think: > > + test case A is a choice (the group seems minded to say that the entailment > holds - I disagree but not strongly). > > + containers cannot contain globally typed literals (i.e. the literals are > either self-denoting or untyped) > > + if test case A is true then rdf:object takes untyped literals as its object > (Brian also mentioned the rdf:object problem in the telecon). This is presumably an arguable benefit of having container machinery darkened? (And reification vocabulary, possibly) : ie, that bogus type inferences aren't drawn by accident. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Goth isn't dead, it's just lying very still and sucking its cheeks in.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 09:44:47 UTC