Re: (offlist) Re: Datatyping Summary

On 2002-01-30 17:38, "ext Graham Klyne" <>

> At 02:52 PM 1/30/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> On 2002-01-30 13:51, "ext Graham Klyne" <>
>> wrote:
>>>> Is the above now clearer?
>>> Clearer, but I don't accept that there is no problem with self-entailment
>>> in TDL as currently presented.
>>> I think TDL possibly can be fixed (and have sent some ideas to Jememy), but
>>> until it is fixed it isn't in my mind a fully fledged proposal.
>> Fair enough.
>> Though I'd very much like your comments to my question in
>> my MT commments to Pat, that insofar as the actual denoted
>> values are concerned, I wonder if either TDL or S can
>> ensure entailment, since RDF is stuck with non-canonical
>> lexical forms. C.f. the last comment in
> Unfortunately the question doesn't make sense to me -- entailment is a
> relationship between graphs, not something that happens to the values in
> (or denoted by) a graph.

Then I guess I really don't grok the problem.

It seemed to me that Dan's expectations of tidy literals was
that he was treating node equality with value equality, rather
than just string equality.

Insofar as the graph itself is concerned, literals are just
strings. They don't become values without interpretation
based on a datatype context.

So all you could entail between two literal nodes is string

But I'll just but out of this particular discussion and let
you more capable and learned folks hash it out.

(I knew I should have slept less in math class...  ;-)



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email:

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 12:40:07 UTC