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

Re: datatypes and MT

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:43:26 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510104ab80e50032572@[65.212.118.166]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 06:55 PM 11/5/01 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>>So, returning to my DTLS, DTVS, DTLV musings [1]:
>>>
>>>- Sometimes, we know/express a value in DTLS (the literal space) 
>>>-- the case noted above.
>
>(I meant to say "lexical space").
>
>>>- Sometimes, we know that the value of some node is in DTVS (the 
>>>value space) -- this corresponds to the view of data type as 
>>>describing a value space (The view I think Brian is expressing). 
>>>Of itself, this doesn't help us express a particular value.
>>
>>No, but *together with the literal itself* it enables you to figure 
>>out the value intended. It disambiguates the literal, if you like. 
>>That's all it needs to do; the literal itself provides the 
>>particular value, once you know how to interpret it.
>
>Hmmm...  When you say "the literal itself", do you mean the lexical string?
>
>(I've tried to use the terms "literal string" and "literal value" to 
>distinguish the lexical and  value spaces, but I may have slipped in 
>places.)
>
>I think we agree, but I'd prefer to say that we need a mapping 
>scheme (my DTLV) to express a given value as a string.  That 
>provides your "once we know how to interpret it".
>
>>>- Sometimes, we know a particular value in DTVS;  but to *express* 
>>>this value, we need a corresponding value in DTLS
>>
>>But the literal itself IS the particular value in DTLS. We don't 
>>need another name for it: we have it in our syntax already. We 
>>don't have to even mention or refer to it at all; we just have to 
>>know how to interpret it.
>
>I don't see how that's different from what I'm saying.
>
>There is a number value that designates the number of fingers on 
>both of my hands.  I understand that number on various ways, some 
>not linguistic.  That is my value in DTVS.  I want to express that 
>number in a text-based communication, so I need a lexical 
>representation for it.  Commonly, I might use "10" and many people 
>would understand how to interpret it.  An ancient Roman might have 
>used "X".  An early computer programmer might have used "1010" or 
>"12" or "A".  These are all different literal strings (in some DTLS 
>or other).  I don't see these as inventing "another name":  they're 
>lexical representations of the given number value under different 
>mapping schemes (DTLV).

OK, sorry. I was getting my rhetorical wires crossed.

I agree with everything you say here, very nicely put (might be worth 
recording for the primer?)

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 21:43:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:31 EDT