- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:43:30 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 08:17, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >[...] >> The additional blank node was at the heart of the untidy proposals (either >> explicitly or implicitly) and this proposal is essentially untidiness >> revisited. > >Is it really? After a quick read, I also came to the >conclusion that consideration of this proposal involves >reopening the datatypes issue... > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes I was hoping it would not. > >but just to confirm, Pat, in your proposal, does this >entailment hold or not? > > <a> <b> "10" . > <c> <d> "10" . > >entails > > <a> <b> _:l . > <c> <d> _:l . > That was the idea, but I see that this would mean that it would be impossible to have "chat" in French and "chat" in English in the same graph. So on reflection, I don't think this old idea really does allow us to have tidy literals and optional lang tags. We really cannot have it both ways. Either literals somehow 'include' a language - in which case, if you don't display it as part of the literal, the graph is untidy on literal strings - or else they don't, in which case asserting the language as a property has no semantic basis. Oh well, never mind. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Pat >-- draft question: option C 10 Oct 2002 >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html ><- 11 Oct 2002 minutes >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html ><- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 17:43:31 UTC