- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:52:55 +0100
- 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 UTC