W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: heading toward datatyping telecon

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:49:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101030b80cf0555a1c@[]>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > Still somehow that does not sit right with my intuitions.  In rdf schema I
>>  to  say that the value of a property is an integer; after parsing I don't
>>  care whether is was represented in decimal, binary or hieroglyphics.  rdf
>>  is about describing the data model, not the syntactic representation.
>Exactly. It is up to the lexical representation itself to provide
>information such as the base used in the representation. Such
>distinctions which are only relevant to representation should not
>be tied to the identity of the data type itself. "Hexidecimal encoded
>integer" is not a data type.

Ah, I think I see why we misunderstood one another. You are using 
'datatype' to refer to the set of things, and I am using it to refer 
to lexical-to-value mapping.

However, let me take up your point directly. We have a distinction 
available between a class as an intensional object, and the set of 
things in its extension.  It *is* possible to think of Hexadecimal EI 
as a class in the first sense, even though it has the same extension 
as, say, DEI and OEI and even BEI. If we associate datatyping 
conventions (ie lexical-to-value mappings) with such classes, then 
being told that a certain literal is in the class 'hexadecimal 
encoded integer' may be sufficient to enable a reasoner to infer that 
it should use the appropriate datatyping conventions to interpret 
that literal . That is precisely the way that the proposed model 
theory extension works.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 20:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC