- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:56:31 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat, > >I support the "gist" of essentially all that you are saying >below, but would offer an even more simplified proposal. > >Rather than > >> Jenny ex:age _:y "10" . >> _:y "10" xsd:number _:x . >> Jim ex:age _:x . > >simply > >Jenny ex:age _:y"10" . >_:y rdf:type xsd:integer . >Jim ex:age _:y . OK, but bear in mind that the subject of the second triple is the very same node as the object of the first triple, and so it still has the "10" literal label, even though you didn't mention it. So this is exactly the same graph as: Jenny ex:age _:y "10" . _:y "10" rdf:type xsd:integer . Jim ex:age _:y "10". Now, that would be nice, but... >so that datatyping is no different than "normal" RDF >typing, and the above works perfectly in conjuction >with rdfs:range. E.g. ....seems to me that it doesn't work, and that we have been here before. In fact this is very much like the old P++ proposal that you shot down, on the excellent grounds that mere membership in the value space cannot be the trigger of a datatype check since two datatypes with different lexical2value mappings can have exactly the same value space. Which is why we decided to make the actual range itself be the trigger, rather than an rdf:type conclusion from the range. (Have you changed your mind on that point??) > ex:age rdfs:range xsd:integer . > >Likewise, rather than > >> _:x"10" rdf:sourceDeclaration "xml version="1.0"" . >> _:x"10" rdf:xmlLang "FR" . > >simply > >_:x"10" rdf:type rdf:XML . >_:x"10" xml:lang _:z"fr" . Yes, that is better. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 11:59:13 UTC