- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:22:47 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > I believe that the most important thing to get right is the *treatment* of > literals. This may result in different answers to A and D, and even > different potentially different kinds of answers to A and D. I am > providing the answer below partly to show that a different reading of > literals can change the answer to the question. It first reading, this seems an entirely appropriate way to look at the issue. > > > ANSWER: > > Under a treament of literals that has a literal denote a set, namely > (potentially a superset of) the set of data values that some datatype maps > the literal to, the answer to A is YES. The technical answer to D is NO, > but the real answer to D is YES, in that the denotation of _:a is a > (probably a singleton) subset of the denotation of "10", and thus _:a and > "10" are `the same,' under a reasonable reading for `the same.' > Yes. Attempts for "untidy" literals seem to arise from the desire: numberOfViewings(x) not-equals titleOf(x) where _x_ is a movie whose title is "10" but as Drew McDermott correctly points, out, there is no _syntactic_ distinction between "10" the integer and "10" the string so while the token "10" can map to both an integer and a string, the value-set is the same for the value of both functions, hence these _must be_ equal. I strongly agree that your general framework for analyzing the problem is the one that needs to hold sway. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 09:37:36 UTC