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

Re: simple entailments for numerals

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:11:56 +0300
Message-ID: <005701c27a85$00221d70$1381720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 23 October, 2002 13:38
Subject: Re: simple entailments for numerals

> >> [just to report some experience]
> >> it seems to me that numbers are important
> >> so in
> >>   :Jenny :age '10' .
> >> the '10' (which is *not* the "10" but a
> >> syntactic shorthand for xsd:decimal"10" or
> >> any subclassed value of it)
> >> denotes the number 10
> >> and so
> >>   :Jenny :age '10' .
> >> simple-entails
> >>   :Jenny :age '+1E1' .
> >
> >Yes and no. This only works IFF the subclass of xsd:decimal
> >has both a lexical space that is a proper subset of xsd:decimal
> >and a L2V mapping that is compatable to that of xsd:decimal.
> I was just talking about the subclasses of xsd:decimal
> specified in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
> so the 'any' was in that respect

Fair enough, but as RDF is supposed to support arbitrary
datatypes I would expect that machinery proposed for processing
RDF would by default respect that fact, and as such, my comments
are valid.

If folks wish to have proprietary machinery that only works with 
XML Schema datatypes, that's fine, but let's be very clear then when
proposals are constrained in such a fashion, otherwise we spend
too much time re-re-re-clarifying issues such as the above.

This was why I requested some clarification in the specs when
'datatype' is used, since it is clear that some folks mean
rdfs:Datatype and others mean XML Schema datatype and depending
on which is meant, it can greatly affect the significance of
what folks are saying.


Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 07:11:59 UTC

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