[foaf-protocols] how to define that a relation is a dataype?

[Pat Hayes]

Dan is absolutely correct. See below.

On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 13:50 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 23:57 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Story Henry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a relation :hex defined as
>>>>>
>>>>> @prefix : <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#> .
>>>>>
>>>>> :hex a owl:DatatypeProperty,
>>>>>    owl:InverseFunctionalProperty;
>>>>>  rdfs:label "hexadecimal"@en;
>>>>>  rdfs:domain :Integer;
>>>>>  rdfs:range :String;
>>>>>  vs:term_status "unstable" .
>>>>>
>>>>> This relates a number to a string.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. But be clear: that is *not* a datatype. It is the
>>>> inverse
>>>> of a datatype mapping, in fact. Datatypes always map FROM strings  
>>>> TO
>>>> values.
>>>
>>> That's completely arbitrary; it makes just as much sense to adopt
>>> the opposite convention.
>>
>> Except that RDF already used this one. Its not completely arbitrary,
>> but in any case its set in stone now.
>
> I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the 2004 specs are silent on the
> use of datatypes as properties. Both directions are consistent
> semantic extensions.

Yes, you are right. So this semantic extension is perfectly legal,  
contrary to what I was claiming. <Sound of crows being eaten />

Sigh. However, it seems utterly crazy to me to use the same URI to  
denote both a mapping (inside a typed literal) and its inverse mapping  
(as a property). If I had even thought that anyone would want do that,  
I would have urged that we made it illegal back when we were writing  
the specs. The only possible reason for it that I can see would be to  
set out to make things deliberately confusing.

Pat



>
>
>>>>> 1234 :base64 "TU";
>>>>>   :hex "4D2";
>>>>>   :dec "1234";
>>>>>   :oct "2322";
>>>>>   :bin "11010010" .
>>>>
>>>> You could, but by using properties from values to strings, you have
>>>> kind of shot yourself in the foot.
>>>
>>> How so? This works just fine, in my experience.
>>>
>>>>> if this WERE equivalent to the two relations:
>>>>>
>>>>> :x :dollarValue "1234".
>>>>> "1234" xsd:int 1234 .
>>>>
>>>> No, its certainly not. The literal denotes the value, not the  
>>>> string.
>>>> So the right way to split that up into two triples would be
>>>>
>>>> :x :dollarValue :y .
>>>> "1234" xsd:int :y .
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> :x :dollarValue _:y.
>>> _:y xsd:int "1234".
>>
>> That will get you an immediate domain/range error. Well, it should.
>> The range of xsd:int is numbers, not strings.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not specified either way.
>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> :x :dollarValue 1234.
>>
>> Um... is that legal RDF?
>
> It's a turtle abbreviation for
>  :x :dollarValue "1234"^^xsd:integer.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#abbrev
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes