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

Re: email straw poll: literal semantics proposals

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:39:40 -0400
Message-ID: <3DA5750C.30700@mitre.org>
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
CC: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org


Can you say a little more about why you don't want to lose this 
entailment?  Note: my understanding is that even under F an application 
would still be able to access the triples

        :I :love "RDF".
        :You :love "RDF".

and deduce anything it wanted, including

        :I :love _:x.
        :You :love _:x.

(presumably on the basis that the two "RDF" strings *may* have been 
meant to refer to the same thing).  It's only entailments directly 
defined by the RDF semantics we're talking about here, not additional 
determinations that applications may want to make, right?


Jos De_Roo wrote:

> [sorry to be late, but I had no access in Bristol to my mailbox]
> B 5 (for rdf:format xsd:... there are canonical lexical forms)
> C 3 (should we then always say e.g. owl:cardinality xsd:integer"2"?)
> D 2 (meaning is same as C, but less kiss)
> F 0 i.e. I do not want to loose the the entailment
>       :I :love _:x.
>       :You :love _:x.
>     given *nothing* but
>       :I :love "RDF".
>       :You :love "RDF".
>     (ref. meaningful derivation requirement)

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 08:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC