- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:48:53 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Another possible test case - >as far as I can tell >xsd:NCName and xsd:ID have the same L, V and L2V, but have different names. > >In OWL Full (which admittedly is not our problem), under the LC document we >would have had: > >xsd:NCName owl:sameIndividualAs xsd:ID . > >being a consistent document. > >With the current editor's draft the same document is inconsistent. No it isn't. The requirements there allow a datatype to have two names. What is required is only that the 'official' name really does name the datatype, I(name(d)) = d that doesn't stop I(<someothernamefor:d>) = d But maybe this needs to be stated more carefully to make this clear. > >I wonder whether Pat's treatment could be changed slightly so that the set D >rather than being a set of datatypes, is a set of pairs of (urirefs and >datatypes). > >Then D must be a subset of I (the interpretation function in the MT), which >gets the naming constraint Pat is trying to introduce. > > >I suspect Pat could make that work ... is it worth his effort? I could do that but I don't think it would be a good idea, that really would break that OWL identity once and for all, and it would trigger Patrick's objections. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 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 Friday, 28 February 2003 09:48:57 UTC