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

Re: datatyping unstaked

From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:45:14 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111a19b9304bd19710@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>On first pass, I find this an improvement on the current datatyping, 
>and is far better suited to the requirements of CC/PP.
>I need to study this more carefully, but meanwhile have a couple of 
>small comments:
>>Second, we could introduce a special property called something like 
>>rdfd:rigidliteral, which forces a literal to be interpreted 
>>literally, as it were. This acts like a datatype property, but what 
>>it says is that the literal really does denote itself: its a kind 
>>of pre-emptive datatype-exclusion device which produces a datatype 
>>clash with any datatype. The semantics is that it forces D to be 
>>the identity map in its object, and it denotes equality. Then we 
>>could get the current meaning by writing things like
>Wouldn't asserting a datatype of xsd:string (which maps literal 
>strings to themselves) on the corresponding property have the same 

Yes, it would (provided we say that those strings in literals really 
are xsd:strings: Im not sure if some people might want to argue that 
each datatype defines it sown notion of 'string'.) I just thought we 
could use this without appealing to any external datatypes. Maybe 
this isnt such a great idea, in any case.

>Or, for example, using xsd:string datatype mapping, as in:
>   <ex:Jenny> <ex:age> _:x .
>   _:x <xsd:string> "10" .
>I can't see what value rdfd:rigidliteral would add.
>>One way to rule things like this out, if someone wanted to do that, would be:
>><rdfs:range> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> < rdfd:rangedatatype>  .
>Isn't that potentially non-monotonic?  (I think this is a general 
>problem with making additional assertions about core RDF vocabulary.)

I don't quite see how. It would certainly be rather a dangerous thing 
to assert in general, which is why I was only half-serious, but I 
think it would be monotonic. I hope so, anyway. Can you give more 
details? You have me worried.


IHMC					(850)322 0319   cell
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 21:45:13 UTC

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