- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:21:29 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Steve Petschulat <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
I can't speak for Steve of course, but I
often had something like:
the MT forces us to interpret a literal as
something, but what? (not yet so what)
Some (including myself) say that it denotes itself,
others say that it denotes the value of a function
eg:dt(lexical-form) (and still others would maybe
say that there should be more function arguments
taken into account).
The former is a minimal interpretation and kind of
leaves the meaning of a statement determined by the
statement verb, which is why I like it.
The latter can be achieved with datatyped literals
such as e.g. used in
eg:s eg:p eg:dt"abc" .
eg:s eg:p (eg:dt "abc") .
eg:s eg:p eg:dt("abc") .
As far as I can see both stances use different models
but *could* have intended the same and therefore
want to use the same property name, which looks like
a bug to me (and which is not the fault of the MT).
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Brian McBride
<bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.c To: Steve Petschulat <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>
om> cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: clarify "inline literals"
w3c-rdfcore-wg-req
uest@w3.org
2002-09-28 05:24
PM
Steve,
On Friday's telecon, you stated as a requirement:
[["Inline" literals are required, don't care about model theory]]
What exactly did you mean here. I thought at the time you meant that we
get rid of non typed literals, but maybe you meant something else.
Brian
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:22:07 UTC