- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:06:39 -0400
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > At 08:53 AM 7/12/02 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote: > >The danger in interpreting this idiom in any way other than > > > >age = "10" > > > >is non-monotonicity. That is in the absence of _some other triples_ i.e. a > >schema, the object of the age predicate is the literal string "10". > > [A late response to your comment; I've not been following closely, of > late, and am now catching up email on a long plane flight.] > > A possible interpretation, which doesn't incur non-monotonicity, is that > Jenny's age is some value that can be represented by the string > "10". Which doesn't really tell you anything about Jeny's age in the > absence of datatype info (hence avoiding problems of non-mon). > Yes. But this seems to say that such literals are "tidy", no? This is what I mean by suggesting that a literal denotes a _set_ of things, i.e. "10" => { "10", xsd:decimal"10", xsd:binary"10" ... } and that datatyping info (e.g. a schema) subsets this set. perhaps this could be called tidy+ in terms of the other proposal: xsd:decimal"10" => _:a1 rdf:type xsd:decimal . _:a1 rdfdt:value "10" . or something to that effect... Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 10:21:45 UTC