W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Denotation of datatype values

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:52:55 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:27 AM 4/16/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > I think that this way of phrasing it might be potentially misleading,
> > since it suggests that the pairings are actually in the MT.
>Perhaps they should be.

[GK wanders over to the stake in the ground, and gives it a hard kick, to 
make sure it's still firmly planted...]

>But we have been asked, to a certain extent, to provide an answer
>that extends to the point of obtaining a datatype value unambiguously
>and reliably. The present MT does not bring users to that point.
>A datatyped literal pairing does -- insofar as it identifies a single
>value which is obtainable by an application which groks the datatype
>in question.

Having an rdfd:range [[or substitute current vocab]] associated with a 
property tells you nothing about the denotation of an object of that 
property.  I.e. it does nothing to help "obtaining a datatype value 
unambiguously and reliably".  (I found that trying to make it do so leads 
to contradictions.)

All it does is limit the allowable literals at the property's sharp end.


Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 08:35:44 UTC

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