- 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