> >>  >>  >that oddity.
> >>  >>  datatypes to have the same value space.
> >>  >Not at all. But see below.
> >>  >the same relations hold for them in terms of either datatype.
> >>  >I.e., if X < Y in datatype 1 then X < Y in datatype 2.
> >>  >not, then can they really intersect?
> claim authority over Platonic abstractions.
interoperability goes right down the toilet.
conclusions of your system may very well differ from everyone else's.
about consistent semantics and interoperability).
> >>  on the set, rather than simply a set or class of things.
> >relations of their supersets.
> with anything to get inherited.
to any other thing which also occurs in the same sets.
> >>  >can they really intersect?
> >>  this would be impossible.
> >than xsd:anyURI and therefore they cannot intersect.
> No, there is no such thing as 'different equality' in classes.
> >that their value spaces are in fact disjunct.
> said makes sense, given the wording in the XSD spec.
> >>  >I think not, in both cases.
> >>  >that of xsd:string.
> >>  isnt relevant to rdfs:StringLiteral?
> >themselves and not contextual for the datatype.
> disjoint, since the 'things' in the class inherit their class-ness.
> people-as-mammals or people-as-employees. Yuk.
sets in which those things are placed in.
I'm still "male" even when considered as a member of the set "employee"
even though the perspective of that set is gender neutral.
the thing irregardless of the interface.
> >subset thereof in which they occur. If there is some other "thing"
The URI documents unfortunately blur the lexical and value distinction.
That is a shortcoming of those specifications which we need not repeat.
values. The ambiguity is unfortunate.
> more things in the universe.
there are now more things in the universe than those folks thought.
Is that necessarily a bad thing, that we have removed some ambiguity?
> >I may be wrong, but I'm not viewing them as the same thing.
> as far as the editor is concerned.
the URI specs speak of equivalence, such that "foo:bar" and "FOO:BAR"
I guess it's something that has to be fixed in 2.0, if ever.
> >  > This is the 'weak typing' view Im giving you here, of ocurse.
> >Ahhh, right. I'm definitely taking a strong typing view.
> logics for reasoning about categories, not OO modelling languages.
> diagrams and thinking of them like an OO method-inheritance taxonomy.
> Strong typing only makes sense in the second way of thinking.
typing is IMO the only acceptable approach.
trust, because it takes to weak a view for such things.
Perhaps I'm asking RDF to do something that it just cannot do.
Previous message: Patrick Stickler: "Re: Notes on updates to RDF Schema"
Reply: Graham Klyne: "Re: Datatyping literals: question and test cases"
Maybe reply: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: Datatyping literals: question and test cases"