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@[]>
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 
>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?)


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 21:43:38 UTC

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