From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/04/01
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: new model theory for DAML+OIL
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:32:29 -0500
[...]
> >4/ My hope is that the RDF(S) model theory from the RDF Core WG will
> >eventually include datatypes. If this is not the case then I expect that
> >it will be able to admit the DAML+OIL version of datatypes.
>
> I would guess the latter is the likeliest outcome, but its only a
> guess. Certainly I would want to at least achieve this as a minimum,
> so let us try to keep our work in alignment as far as possible.
>
> It still seems to me that the slight weakening of the
> ICEXT(I(rdf:Literal)) condition (to a subset of LV) is all that is
> needed to keep the required compatibility, since my LV can be the
> union of the ranges of your various literal mappings, and it may
> overlap with IR (and if it does, then your two cases for rdfs:range
> are both covered by my equation on the intersection.) If you
> disagree, can you pinpoint the problem, so I can fix it?
I don't think that this works, because mentioning a literal can make it
also be a resource. Consider
rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
rdfs:range rdfs:label "Range" .
makes I("Range") in ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)
so <I("Range"), I(rdfs:Literal)> in IEXT(I(rdf:type))
and thus I("Range") in IR
However, there is also a more-basic problem with literals.
Literals have a unique mapping into literal values, which means the
denotation of both literals below have to be the same.
<Person rdf:ID="John">
<age>05</age>
<streetAddress>05</streetAddress>
</Person>
This would not allow one to consistently say
<age rdfs:range xsd:integer>
<streetAddress rdfs:range xsd:string>
[...]
> Pat
peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST