- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:33:05 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 18:50 06/11/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: > >[...] > >>Add some datatypes: >> >>If sss is a legal lexical form for ddd then >> >>aaa ppp "sss"^^ddd . >>ddd a rdfs:Datatype . >>--> >>aaa ppp -:xxx . >>_:xxx a ddd . > >Are there technical reasons why sss has to be legal for this >entailment. Would it make sense that just be using ddd in that >position in a literal, one is asserting that its a datatype. Of >course one, might be wrong; but that's not RDF's business. The problem with that line is that adding datatypes produces a nonmonotonic inference (when you discover that since the typed literal is illegal, it doesnt denote anything in the ddd value space). So thats why it is RDF's business, in a sense. Sure, RDF can't know which things are legal all by itself, but it needs to not unilaterally assume that they are all legal, in case you are not. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 12:32:47 UTC