- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:12:48 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
The discussion at Friday's telecon reminded me why I was keen to have test case A still in. I've tried to raise this point a couple of times and just wanted to put it more formally. It is suggested that, even with untidy literals: _:a <p> "lit" . _:b <p> "lit" . entails: _:a <p> _:l . _:b <p> _:l . Consider a statement and its reification: <s> <p> "a" . (1) _:s rdf:subject <s> . _:s rdf:predicate <p> . _:s rdf:object "a" . (2) _s: rdf:type rdf:Statement. Does the object of statement (1) denote the same thing as the object of statement (2)? Given the model theory as it stands (Pat - is this right?) the answer to this question is yes. Now consider: <jenny> foo:age "10" . (3) <film> dc:title "10" . (4) foo:age rdfs:range xsdr:decimal . dc:title rdfs:range xsdr:string . and two reifications: _:a rdf:subject <jenny> . _:a rdf:predicate foo:age . _:a rdf:object "10" . (5) _:a rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:b rdf:subject <film> . _:b rdf:predicate dc:title . _:b rdf:object "10" . (6) _:b rdf:type rdf:Statement . Then the objects of statements (5) and (6) cannot denote the same thing as the objects of statements (3) and (4) respectively. I confess I find this rather bizarre. In the case where the object of a statement is a literal, then the value of the rdf:object property of the reification of that statement denotes a syntactic entity, otherwise it denotes a semantic one. (Sorry that doesn't sense to a logician, but Pat'l know what I mean.) Is that what we mean to say? If the answer to test case A is yes, then we need an non-entailment test: <s> <p> "a" . _:s rdf:subject <s> . _:s rdf:predicate <p> . _:s rdf:object "a" . _s: rdf:type rdf:Statement . where _:s is a reification of the first statement does not entail: <s> <p> _:o . _:s rdf:object _:o . Brian
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 13:14:12 UTC