- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:00:02 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
[...]
> What built in stuff specifically? As I understand it, the idea is that
> datatyping is built in. So for example,
>
> <a> <b> "foo"^^someDatatype .
> <c> <d> "foo"^^someDatatype .
>
> entails
>
> <a> <b> _:v .
> <c> <d> _:v .
>
> This must be true for all datatypes, I believe.
I believe that too
> On the other hand, for some reason I haven't figured out, the WG were
keen
> that:
>
> <a> <b> "foo"^^dt1 .
> <c> <d> "bar"^^dt2 .
> entails
> <a> <b> _:v .
> <c> <d> _:v .
>
> whenever dt1.value("foo") = dt2.value("bar")
>
> should be in a separate category of datatype entailments. Specific
> entailments in this category depend on specific knowledge of that actual
> datatypes, e.g.
>
> <a> <b> "10"^^xsd:integer .
> <c> <d> "010"^^xsd:integer .
right, maybe to extend Pat's namespace entailment idea,
one could for instance say "XSD entails"
(actually give all the namespaces in the premise)
> >So my question is, will incorporating datatyping into the basic RDF MT
> >cause anyone grief? In particular, will it break the proposed API
designs
> >apparently being developed? Because if so, we have some hard thinking to
> >do. I really don't see how I can make sense of typed literals without
> >talking about datatypes and datatype mappings.
>
>
> Just so.
>
> Does any WG member disagree with the characterization above?
I agree with with your characterization
> Pat: is that
> enough guidance for you?
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:01:45 UTC