- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:29:19 -0600
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > We know that: >> > >> > <a> <b> "foo"@@en#<datatype> . >> > <c> <d> "foo"@@fr#<datatype> . >> > >> > entails >> > >> > <a> <b> _:l . >> > <c> <d> _:l . >> > >> > for all datatypes except rdf:XMLLiteral. > >Is this _really_ the case? I thought we'd got _distinct_ literal nodes >for "foo"^^<datatype>, "foo"@en^^<datatype> and "foo"@fr<datatype> in >the abstract syntax; then it's down to a _datatype_ entailment to throw >away the language tag if it's unimportant. That is, > ><eg:foo> <eg:bar> "10"@en^^<xsd:integer> . > >datatype[xsd:integer]-entails > ><eg:foo> <eg:bar> "10"@fr^^<xsd:integer> . > >analogously to the dataype[xsd:integer]-entailment of > ><eg:foo> <eg:bar> "010"^^<xsd:integer> . > >Thus datatypes that care about language tags have them available for the >lexical->value mapping if required...? > >I'd understood that we'd got tidy, lang-tagged, datatyped literals >behaving themselves as of several telecons ago. Is it really the case >that > ><eg:foo> <eg:bar> "baz"@en^^<datatype> . ><eg:pop> <eg:bar> "baz"@fr^^<datatype> . > >simple-entails > ><eg:foo> <eg:bar> _:l . ><eg:pop> <eg:bar> _:l . No, it shouldn't. In simple entailment, the only things known to co-denote are identical literals, and that 'identical' includes all the stuff stuck on it. We can change this, but that's the way it is right now. 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 Wednesday, 20 November 2002 15:29:23 UTC