- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:10:42 -0700
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:11:17 UTC
Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>Why does the MT *need* to make the triple drawn to the LexicalNode
>>invalid in prescence of a range constraint ?
>>
>>
>
>Because the range assertion says that the object of the property
>is a member of the particular class, and in the case of a datatype
>class, its RDF Class extension is the value space. And a lexical
>node is not a datatype value, but a string.
>
It seems to me that the MT's range entailments cannot be applied to
LexicalNodes at all. This is because however hard we try we simply
could not draw the arrow {uuu [rdfs:type] zzz } as prescribed by the
entailment rule [rdfs3] in the case where uuu is a LexicalNode. Since
we cannot draw an arrow from a LexicalNode, I propose to change [rdfs3]
to exclude such an erronous entailment .... something like I have
depicted in my new diagram [3].
[3] http://robustai.net/mentography/jenny_mt_rdfs3.jpg
I think this works if you'all consider a LexicalNode not to be or
rdf:type rdfs:Resource. Do you? ... and could the MT be changed as I
propose? ... and would that solve your concern above?
.... and thanks for your comments in my blog :-) .
Seth Russell
http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:11:17 UTC