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: <5.1.0.14.2.20020416125205.00a7bc20@joy.songbird.com>
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.

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 08:35:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:29 EDT