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

Re: TEST: datatype testcase

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:11:48 +0100
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAB98C580.F0DEBD60-ONC1256C78.003CB4DB-C1256C78.003D942B@agfa.be>


>>   "10.1"^^xsd:decimal math:greaterThan "8.4"^^xsd:decimal .
>>   "P1Y2M"^^xsd:duration math:notGreaterThan "P14MT10H"^^xsd:duration .
>>   "01:41:00+01:00"^^xsd:time math:lessThan "05:41:00Z"^^xsd:time .
>>   "1956-01-10"^^xsd:date math:notLessThan "1956-01-10"^^xsd:date .
>>   "10"^^xsd:int math:equalTo "010"^^xsd:int .
>>   "10"^^xsd:string math:notEqualTo "010"^^xsd:string .
>Oooh, does it?? That is, where did those IEXT(I(math:whatevers)) get
>their semantic restrictions from? Can a datatype impose some extra
>semantic conditions on some *properties* as well as on the datatyped
>literals ?? That's a more generous notion of datatype than we have
>been considering up to now. .

right and this is just exploring possibilities...

>I didn't put anything like that in the MT, but maybe I should have
>done. In fact I like this idea.
>Where are the math: thingies defined? (URI??)

right now at
or if you prefer to read it in n3 at

I have very good experience with those
e.g. for graphs descibing reasonably
complex geometric model entailments

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 06:12:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC