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

Explanation? of difference between Patrick and Brian [was: Re: Intentions of XMP]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:17:09 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core WG 7332#" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 08:45 27/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:


>I'd have preferred the question be asked in terms of neutral names as in
>the original:
>    <a> <b> "foo" .
>    <c> <d> "foo" .
>As expressed, knowledge about the properties you have picked, built into
>XMP may have influenced the answer.
>         But Brian, it is *precisely* that built in knowledge we are
>         testing! Does XMP interpret those literals as denoting
>         stings or values.

Eureka!  That is the test *you* are applying.  I think I may have 
understood why we don't seem to be understanding each other here.  How is 
this for a description of the test you are applying:


   <a> <b> "10" .
   <b> rdfs:range xsd:int;
   <c> <d> "10" .
   <d> rdfs:range xsd:string .


   <a> <b> _:l .
   <c> <d> _:l .

A system for which this entailment holds is Patrick-tidy.  A system which 
does not is Patrick-untidy.

The test I (the wg?) have been using is (modifying the literal in a neutral 
way) is does:

   <a> <b> "10" .
   <c> <d> "10" .


   <a> <b> _:l .
   <c> <d> _:l .

It is possible for a system to be both tidy (in the sense above) and 
Patrick-untidy, but only if it is non-monotonic.

This is actually a plausible implementation strategy for some systems, but 
I believe would not be acceptable in the model theory.

Does that bring us any closer to understanding?

Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 03:38:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:15 UTC