# Re: Denotation of datatype values

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:03:35 -0400
Message-Id: <p05101515b8e0e23eac67@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

```>On 2002-04-09 13:39, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>wrote:
>
>>  At 10:19 AM 4/9/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>  I.e. given only
>>>
>>>     Jane ex:age "25" .
>>>
>>>  "25" alone does not denote the value twenty-five. But given
>>>
>>>     ex:age rdfd:range xsd:integer .
>>>     Jane ex:age "25" .
>>>
>>>  then "25" and the rdfd:range assertion *together* denote the
>>>  value twenty-five. Yet still, "25" alone does not denote the
>>>  value twenty-five. There is no single node in the graph which
>>>  denotes the value twenty-five. The value remains implicit in
>>>  the datatype interpretation.
>>
>>  According to my understanding of the datatyping proposal, there is
>>  _nothing_ in this graph that denotes the value 25.  All that is required is
>>  that there exists some value, not necessarily denoted by anything in the
>>  graph, that is related to the string "25" by the datatype
>>  "xsd:integer".  (And according to our shared understanding of xsd:integer,
>>  that "some value" is 25.)

Right.

>I agree. I perhaps am using the word "denote" incorrectly here.
>
>The question is whether we need/want there always to be
>"something in the graph" to denote the value 25 when, based
>on our shared understanding, we know we're talking about
>the value 25.

I would say not. That is, there need not be anything in the graph
which denotes the value, the above being an example to illustrate
that conclusion.

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 Monday, 15 April 2002 16:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC