- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:49:56 +0200
- To: "Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
>> > My take is that only the first case is RDF-entailed: if the datatype and >> > text are the same for two literals then they must denote the same value. >> >>But they are not the same datatype. They are different URIs, and RDF >>cannot know that there is any intersection of the value spaces of >>xsd:integer and xsd:decimal. Thus the first case is not RDF-entailed. > >Oops, I missed that. Yes, if the datatype URIs are different then IMHO RDF >(alone) cannot infer an equivalence. not with following (as part of rdfs) xsd:decimal a rdfs:Class . xsd:integer rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal . xsd:nonPositiveInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer . xsd:long rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer . xsd:nonNegativeInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer . xsd:negativeInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonPositiveInteger . xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:long . xsd:unsignedLong rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonNegativeInteger . xsd:positiveInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:nonNegativeInteger . xsd:short rdfs:subClassOf xsd:int . xsd:unsignedInt rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedLong . xsd:byte rdfs:subClassOf xsd:short . xsd:unsignedShort rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedInt . xsd:unsignedByte rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedShort . -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:50:42 UTC