- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:19:26 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > >> To me, using "^^" makes it clear that ^^ is a syntactic thing >> whose semantics are in fact equivalent to "^" except that >> the formal triples representation is different. >> >> So Jos, you can if you want dismantle the triple into two. >> You will have a semantically equivalent graph. > >Well surprise surprise. I guess my suspicions about ^^ were correct. > >I reiterate my opposition to the use of ^^ in the abstract syntax. To the particular notation, or to the very idea? > >A typed literal node may *not* be "dismantled" into >additional triples, even if it might be deemed to be semantically >equivalent to an expansion into a bnode with datatype property >(and I am not convinced that it is). > >If an application wishes to define rules to infer those additional >triples, fine, but the ^^ delimiter does not function in any way >like ^ in N3. > >I would like either for the delimiter to be removed entirely or >for there to be an explicit statement that such "dismantling" >of the typed literal node is not licensed by the RDF specs. Well, but do you have any objection to an entailment of the form aaa ppp "whatever"^^dtypefoo . --> aaa ppp _:xxx . _:xxx dtypefoo "whatever" . being valid? Its validity would not encumber you to actually perform it, after all. I think the 'operational' sound of the word "dismantle" carries some bad implications. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 22:19:49 UTC