W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

RE: test case A revisited

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:37:23 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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
>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 

>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.

Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 13:38:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:13 UTC