- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:30:32 +0300
- To: peter.crowther@networkinference.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > Good point. But again, that has nothing to do with the > > proposed encoding > > of literals as URIs. The very same problem exists with > > > > #Susan #favorite-integer "05" . > > #Susan #favorite-integer "5" . > > > > Right? > > Not necessarily. It depends on whether 'int:' implies some special > processing that strips leading zeroes, or (with an approach > that rohibits > semantically vacuous alternatives) whether the parser can > recognise int:05 > as prohibited and throw an error, or merely return undefined results. No, I meant the present treatment by RDF (not DAML+OIL) of the above pair of statements which are not the same statement, yet intuitively one would think they represent the equivalent knowledge (though they might not...) My point was that whether you have some typed anonymous node pointing to a literal string value or a URI scheme that contains a typed value, the same issue exists. It's not *created* just because you start using URIs for typed data literals. The issue of "5" =? "05" is beside the point of how the literals are represented -- but rather how they are interpreted and how data types themselves are defined and related to one another. The latter is an important question, but it was not the question I originally was trying to address ;-) Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 3 356 0209 Senior Research Scientist Mobile: +358 50 483 9453 Nokia Research Center Fax: +358 7180 35409 Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 15:30:51 UTC