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

RE: ACTION 2001-11-02#02: Datatyping use-cases from CC/PP

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:53:34 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510105fb80f4dfe2c6c@[]>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
>>  Sent: 06 November, 2001 20:17
>>  To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
>>  Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: Re: ACTION 2001-11-02#02: Datatyping use-cases from CC/PP
>>  >......
>>  >It appears to me that we have two separate issues here:
>>  >
>>  >1. The association of data type to literal.
>>  >2. The prescriptive/descriptive nature of data types.
>>  Can you enlarge on that second point? I have no idea what you mean,
>>  and it doesn't seem to have come up before.
>>  For what its worth, I have always assumed that RDF is basically a
>>  descriptive language, so if 'prescriptive' is somehow in contrast to
>>  descriptive then I might take umbrage.
>>  Pat
>There was discussion about this a few weeks ago in the
>rdf-interest list (or was it rdf-logic...?)
>Anyway, the gist is that if both a local type and a range
>are defined, then the range can be seen as prescriptive such
>that a value can be deemed invalid if the local type is
>not equivalent to or a subclass of the range type.

Thanks, but I still don't know what you are talking about. What does 
it mean to say that a value is 'invalid'? The way I see RDF is that 
triples make assertions. More triples make more assertions, which 
restrict the set of satisfying interpretations. There is no notion of 
some part of a triple being 'invalid': if you can write it down, then 
it ought to mean something. (If some construction is meaningless then 
we should rule it out as syntactically illegal; but there is a strong 
RDF cultural bias against this kind of restriction, for 
methodological reasons having to do with the 'open-ness' of the 
semantic web. )

>If no local type is defined for the value, then the range
>can be seen as descriptive of the type of the value.
>The latter is all fine and good, until we think about lexical
>forms and the fact that lexical forms are specific to a
>given data type, and thus, the descriptive approach is not
>reliable as it may suggest an interpretation for which the
>lexical form is either not valid or "unknown".

Well, it can be unknown: that is harmless. I agree that we need some 
security against *incorrect* interpretations being used on literals, 
so they are interpreted in ways that are not the way intended.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 15:53:34 UTC

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