- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:17:09 +0100
- 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: Does: <a> <b> "10" . <b> rdfs:range xsd:int; <c> <d> "10" . <d> rdfs:range xsd:string . entail <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" . entail <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? Brian
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 03:38:59 UTC