- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:37:23 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 14:13 01/07/2002 +0100, 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. Maybe its not so bad as I first thought. If we decide that the answer to test case A is yes and the answer to test case C is no, then we will need some magic in the model theory to handle rdf:object (per my recent post). I guess it would mean applying the same magic to the ordinal properties. >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) Hmm, the question is which. The later seems to imply, if one puts a literal in a container, then one doesn't know what it denotes. Brian
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 13:38:33 UTC